HISTORIC CONTEXT AND HISTORY-ARCHITECTURE SURVEY

Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930-1975

Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota June 2020

575 9TH STREET SE, STE 215 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 | 612.843.4140 | NEWHISTORY.COM

“This publication was made possible in part by the people of Minnesota through a grant funded by an appropriation to the Minnesota Historical Society from the Minnesota Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund. Any views, findings, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Historical Society, or the Minnesota Historic Resources Advisory Committee.”

HISTORIC CONTEXT

Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930-1975 Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota

June 2020

Prepared for: City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development 250 South Fourth Street, Room 250 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Andrea Burke, Supervisor – Historic Preservation, Development Services Division

Prepared By: New History 575 SE 9th Street, Ste. 215 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (612) 843-4140 www.newhistory.com with Visible City 2288 University Avenue, Ste. 204 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 (651) 645-4644 www.visiblecity.com

Principal Investigator: Tamara Halvorsen Ludt, [email protected]

Report Authors: Tamara Halvorsen Ludt, [email protected] Laurel Fritz, [email protected] Lauren Anderson, [email protected]

Graphics and Mapping: Jon Commers Jennifer Strahan Carly Anderson

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Introduction to Historic Contexts 0.1

Chapter One: Minneapolis at Midcentury: An Introduction 1.1

Chapter Two: The Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II 2.1

Chapter Three: Business and Industry 3.1

Chapter Four: Urban Renewal, Interstate Highways, and Historic 4.1 Preservation

Chapter Five: Residential Development 5.1

Chapter Six: Education 6.1

Chapter Seven: Religion 7.1

Chapter Eight: Arts, Culture, and Recreation 8.1

Chapter Nine: Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects 9.1

Appendix A: Abbreviations and Minneapolis Mayors in the Modern Era A.1

INTRODUCTION

Aerial View, Gateway Center Urban Renewal Area, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1960s. Courtesy of http://www.lakesnwoods.com/images/1960s.85.jpg

WHAT IS A HISTORIC CONTEXT?

HISTORIC CONTEXTS

A historic context is a framework for evaluating buildings for historic significance. A historic context focuses on a geographical area, a historical time frame, related historical themes or subjects, and associated property types. A context is not an exhaustive list of properties eligible for historic designation; rather, it provides information against which a property can be evaluated to determine whether or not it has historic significance.1

The context that follows is an examination of the City of Minneapolis between 1930 and 1975. In consultation with the City of Minneapolis and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, and with guidance from the National Park Service, the authors of this context have focused on historical subjects and themes that had a distinct and measurable impact on the built environment in the City, including:

• The Great Depression, The New Deal, and World War II • Business and Industry • Urban Renewal, Interstate Highways, and Historic Preservation • Residential Development • Education • Religion • Arts, Culture and Recreation • Architecture and Architects

Each context chapter includes references to example properties that represent a particular trend or theme; these example properties should not be understood as a comprehensive list of potentially historically significant buildings in the City of Minneapolis.

In order to situate each of these subjects and themes in the broader history of the City of Minneapolis, Chapter One of the context provides a brief historical overview of the City at midcentury, or “the context of the contexts.”2 While the introductory chapter references social and political movements that had a profound impact on the City of Minneapolis, it is not intended to serve as a comprehensive context of any of these movements. The midcentury moment saw “the strengths and struggles of diverse individuals, cultures, and communities…[and] movements of justice to claim the long-denied rights and protections afforded to them under the United States Constitution.”3 Context studies of the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Rights Movement, the American Indian Movement, and LGBTQ Twin Cities, to name but a few, require a depth of research, community engagement, and peer-review that is beyond the scope of this context. These are essential stories in the history of the City and its residents that cannot be confined to the time period studied in this context; as such, the authors of this report recommend them for further research as individual historic context studies.

1 Barbara Wyatt, “The Components of a Historic Context: A National Register White Paper,” published by the National Park Service, April, 2009. 2 Meghan E. Springate, Ed., LGTBQ America: A Theme Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer History, 03-0. 3 Ibid, 03-1.

0.1

CHAPTER ONE

Postcard of the Minneapolis skyline in the 1960s. Courtesy of http://www.lakesnwoods.com/Minneapolis/1960s.htm

MINNEAPOLIS AT MIDCENTURY: A SNAPSHOT

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Minneapolis Gateway District, 1937. 1.4

Figure 1.2: Minneapolis Truck Strike, 1934. 1.6

Figure 1.3: First World War II Draft Registration, Minneapolis Armory, October 16, 1.7 1940."

Figure 1.4: Woman Streetcar Conductor during WWII, 1940. 1.8

Figure 1.5: Minneapolis City Planners envisioning the new Gateway District, no date. 1.10

Figure 1.6: City Bus, 1958. 1.11

Figure 1.7: Civilians and National Guardsman on Plymouth Avenue in North Minneapolis, 1.13 July, 1967.

Figure 1.8: Twin Cities Pride Parade, 1973. 1.15

1.2

MINNEAPOLIS AT “MIDCENTURY”

“Modernism.” “Mid-century Modern.” “Modern Era.” What do we mean when we refer to “Modern Minneapolis”? Historians of American history generally define the modern era as beginning in 1946, following World War II, a war that radically changed the American economy, society, technology, and role on the world stage.1 American architectural historians understand modernism on a substantially different timeline, with origins in the technological advancements of the late nineteenth century and ending in the 1980s.2

The exploration of the history of Minneapolis in the Modern Era, the focus of this historic context, begins in 1930, when New Deal programs designed to “stimulate the economy, create jobs and raise wages, invest in public works and modernize lagging regions, and give ordinary Americans a new sense of security and hope” also dramatically “extended the regulatory power of the federal government,” a shift which had a significant impact on the modern era.3 The study ends in 1975, which coincides with the end of the Vietnam War, the development of the Energy Crisis, and the national economic downturn of the 1970s – events that shook Americans’ confidence in the social, political, and governmental institutions of the preceding decades, curbing investment and development throughout the country.

Prior to World War II, New Deal programs led to a significant investment in publicly-funded architecture and infrastructure in Minneapolis, including the construction of the Main Post Office, the Minneapolis Armory, buildings on the University of Minnesota campus, and city parks and related support structures.

Following the war, the City was shaped by the country’s ongoing obsession with auto-mobility, post-war financial prosperity, the creation of new building materials that were the result of war-time industrial experimentation and development, Cold War anxieties, the City’s embrace of the urban renewal ethos, and a dynamic local community of master architects. From the transformation of the downtown core through urban renewal programs to the development of new residential enclaves for returning soldiers to the utter devastation of neighborhoods through the construction of the interstate highway system, all of these forces ensured that Minneapolis saw a significant change in the urban landscape during this time period.

The financial collapse known as the Great Depression saw the economic devastation of the United States – and the world. In Minneapolis, the area of downtown known as the “Gateway District” became a gathering space for the City’s unemployed and homeless citizens. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the Gateway District, historically known as “Bridge Square,” the heart of downtown commerce in the nineteenth century, had transitioned from a mixed-use neighborhood to one of boarding houses appealing to single men.4

1 Library of Congress, “Modern Era,” http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/modern/jb_modern_subj.html 2 It is important to note that periodization is a useful, but imperfect, tool. While it makes the study of history accessible and manageable, it risks suggesting that a lines between broad architectural movements such as “modernism” and “postmodernism” overlap. 3 Ibid. 4 https://www.loc.gov/item/2004678114/ 1.3

Between the boarding houses, “vice” industries ranging from saloons to prostitution, and a growing transient population of seasonal workers, the area became known as Minneapolis’s “Skid Row.”5 Believing that clearance of buildings would curb public drunkenness, prostitution and gambling and help reinvent the area, the City demolished blocks of houses and commercial buildings to construct the neoclassical “Gateway Park” in 1915.

While the City saw a slight reduction in crime and homelessness following the construction of the park, the change was short-lived. When Minneapolis began to feel the impact of the Great Depression in 1930—and with the Union City Mission and the Salvation Army Industrial Home, the City’s largest privately-run shelters, regularly beyond capacity—men looking for work, camaraderie, and a place to sleep gathered at the park.6

In addition to the help offered at shelters, Minneapolitans in need of financial assistance sought relief from the privately funded Family Welfare Association. However, private aid organizations were soon stretched thin and looked to the city government to help mitigate the effects of the Depression on the populace.7

Figure 1.1 The Minneapolis Gateway District, c. 1937. Photographed by Russell Lee and John Vachon for the Farm Security Administration, courtesy of the Library of Congress.

5 Joseph Hart, Down & Out: The Life and Death of Minneapolis’s Skid Row (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 3. 6 Raymond L. Koch, “Politics and Relief in Minneapolis During the 1930s,” Minnesota History, (Winter, 1968), 153. 7 Ibid, 154. 1.4

While private aid organizations were pushing the local government to take action to support the growing number of impoverished citizens, social and political parties were staging protests. In 1931 the local Communist Party marched on the state capitol and arranged for William Foster, a nationally renowned member of the party, to give a speech to the crowds of men who regularly gathered in the Gateway District.8 Republican Mayor William Kunze was able to block the speech, but he struggled to manage the mounting “tension…between the city council, the board of public welfare, and the division of public relief.”9 As a result, he was replaced by Farmer-Labor party Mayor William Anderson in 1931.10

With the change in city leadership came increased public outcry over the delays in aid receipt – relief lines were getting longer and longer, there was not enough food to distribute, and aid applications were slow to be processed.11 The superintendent of the Division of Public Relief was replaced and the department was reorganized and departmental operations became more efficient as aid applications continued to increase. 12 In 1932, more than seven hundred protesters marched on City Hall, demanding “a five million dollar appropriation for city relief, an eight-dollar-a-week grant to unemployed workers, and slum clearance.”13 Tensions ran high into the 1932 mayoral election and with increasing political discontent, the office of the mayor changed hands again, this time to Republican A.G. (“Buzz”) Bainbridge, who proposed to remove the fifty-two social workers that staffed the Division of Public Relief in order to have the local police conduct aid request investigations. Ongoing political battles around aid distribution receded following the passage of the National Recovery Act in 1933.14 Federal programs expanded aid throughout the 1930s (for more on these programs, see Chapter Two).

Going into the Depression, Minneapolis was an “open shop” city, meaning that workers were not required to join a labor union. Labor unions had been unable “to get a foothold in the local economy” in the late nineteenth century, but had made progress in organizing and attracting members during the labor shortages of the early twentieth century.15 In order to break strikes and limit labor union organization, business leaders formed the “Citizens Alliance of Minneapolis” in 1903. The power of the Alliance kept Minneapolis an open shop city until the 1930s. By 1934, the City was deep into the Depression – work was scarce and the jobs that could be had came with modest wages, erratic hours, and no opportunity for overtime pay.16 In the spring of 1934, labor organizers with the Local 574 of the Teamsters Union “announced demands for a closed shop and an average wage of $27.50 per week, with extra pay for overtime work” for the truck

8 Ibid, 155. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 157. 13 Ibid, 156. 14 Ibid,159. 15 Ibid. 16 As an example, coal yard workers “only..worked when the weather was cold…’The report would come in that there was serious weather coming…then you would haul coal until 12 o’clock at night. Never got overtime. The yard workers that unloaded the boxcars and loaded the trucks, they were working for 20, 25, 30 cents an hour,” Iric Nathanson, Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century: The Growth of an American City (St. Paul: The Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2010), 73-75. 1.5

drivers in the City’s wholesaling district.17 The Citizen’s Alliance fought back and the Local 547 prepared to strike. The strike began at midnight on May 14, 1934 at 1900 Chicago Avenue.18 Three days later, in an effort to avoid a violent confrontation, Farmer-Labor Governor Floyd Olson tried to convince both sides to negotiate, but the business owners represented by the Citizen’s Alliance refused.19

Figure 2.2 Truck Drivers' Strike, 1934, near 401 First Avenue North. Photograph courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

The strike turned violent on May 19th, with “twelve men badly beaten…[by] the city’s regular policemen.”20 As a result, sheriff’s deputies were recruited to aid in breaking the strike and to make it possible for trucks loaded with goods to leave the wholesaling district. On Monday, May 21st, tensions came to a head when strikers armed with clubs broke through police barricades; fighting broke out and continued until “both sides suffered casualties.”21

17 Ibid, 76. 18 Ibid, 77. 19 Ibid, 79. 20 Ibid, 80. 21 Ibid, 80. 1.6

The strike ended on May 25th, when the Local 524 was recognized and its demands were settled; however, strikes and altercations would continue throughout the summer.22 Settlements were reached following a meeting between Governor Olson and President Roosevelt, whose pro-union administration passed legislation that protected collective bargaining in an effort to stimulate the economy, including the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) and the National Labor Relations Act (1935).23

The National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Labor Relations Act were part of a series of domestic programs enacted by the federal government in the 1930s that were intended to revive the American economy by providing direct financial aid and work relief for the unemployed and reforming various aspects of American life, including industry, agriculture, waterpower, labor, and housing. Known as the “New Deal,” this program of aid greatly expanded the federal government’s services and role in the economy.24 Roosevelt’s New Deal programs injected over a billion dollars into Minnesota’s economy during the 1930s.25

The devastation wrought by the Depression was not contained to the United States. A global epidemic, the financial depression of the 1930s, led to political unrest throughout the world. In Europe, the economic crisis, combined with the lingering impacts of the First World War, led to the rise of totalitarian governments that would soon plunge the continent into a second world war.26 In the early years of the war, the United States maintained an isolationist policy and refrained from entering the conflict. In addition to struggling with the ongoing economic depression, the United States was not yet a leading military power. “In 1939, the United States Army ranked thirty-ninth in the world, possessing a cavalry force of fifty thousand and using horses to pull the artillery.”27 As the Depression wore on, President Roosevelt worked to convince the nation to focus on military production and preparedness.28

22 Minnesota Historical Society, “Truckers Strike, 1934,” https://libguides.mnhs.org/1934strike and Nathanson, Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century, 87. 23 Library of Congress, “Labor Unions During the Great Depression and New Deal,” http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/depwwii/unions/ 24 Robert McElvaine, The Great Depression: America, 1929 -1941 (Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whitside, Ltd., 1984,) 138 – 169. 25 Jerome Tweton, Depression: Minnesota in the Thirties (Fargo, ND: North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, 1981), 17 – 25. 26 The Smithsonian, “The Great Depression and World War II,” https://americanhistory.si.edu/presidency/timeline/pres_era/3_659.html 27 PBS, “The War- At Home War Production,” https://www.pbs.org/thewar/at_home_war_production.htm. 28 Ibid. 1.7

According to Minnesota historian Dave Kenney, in 1939 Minnesota’s “political and business leaders had lobbied heavily for what they considered Minnesota’s fair share of the billions of dollars being spent on the nation’s military buildup.”29 In November of 1940, “the National Defense Advisory Commission (later known as the Office of Production Management, or OPM) opened a field office in Minneapolis to coordinate the distribution of defense contracts in Minnesota.”30 While Minnesota leaders lobbied for defense contracts, President Roosevelt “set staggering goals for the nation’s factories: 60,000 aircraft in 1942 and 125,000 in 1943; 120,000 tanks in the same time period and 55,000 antiaircraft guns.”31

Led by a strong mayor, Hubert Humphrey, Minneapolitans stepped up to do their part to support the war effort. Local companies produced military supplies and sold war bonds, and the first draft registration in Minneapolis was held at the Armory in October of 1940, nearly a year before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States officially entered the war.32

Figure 1.3 "First World War II Draft Registration, Minneapolis Armory, October 16, 1940." Photograph courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

29 Dave Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War: The Homefront During World War II (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 108. 30 Ibid, 109. 31 PBS, “The War- At Home War Production,” https://www.pbs.org/thewar/at_home_war_production.htm. 32 Photograph, "First World War II Draft Registration, Minneapolis Armory, October 16, 1940,” Minnesota Historical Society. 1.8

When the United States entered the war in 1941, many of Minneapolis’s men went to war and its women went to work. “Encouraged by the War Manpower Commission’s propaganda and lured by good wages, women began to take on job responsibilities in business and industry that had been closed to them in peacetime. Many took jobs in shipyards and defense plants, helping to produce battleships, aircraft, vehicles, weapons, ammunition, and other items needed for the war effort.”33 Women also took on jobs that were necessary to keep the City of Minneapolis running, such as serving as streetcar conductors for the Twin City Rapid Transit Company.

Figure 1.4 “Woman Streetcar Conductor during World War II, Minneapolis," October, 1944. Photograph courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

33 Minnesota Historical Society, “Keeping the Home Fires Burning,” https://www.mnhs.org/mgg/war/home-front/learn- more 1.9

Women were not the only group who saw their rights and opportunities expand during the war. In 1947, “Minneapolis was the first city in the United States to enact a municipal fair employment practice law,” extending employment protection to Jewish and African American residents, who had long faced discrimination in Minneapolis.34

Minneapolis had long had a reputation for anti-Semitism, and was considered the country’s “capital of anti- Semitism” in the early 1940s. Similarly, African American residents faced intense discrimination, particularly regarding fair access to housing. “Restrictive housing covenants prevented both Jewish and African American citizens from buying homes” in many Minneapolis neighborhoods and white residents were resistant to neighborhood integration, as the riots that broke out at 4600 Columbus Avenue in 1931 when Arthur and Edith Lee, an African American couple, purchased the house in a predominantly white neighborhood demonstrated.35 The City’s Northside proved an inclusive neighborhood, “where residents from different backgrounds cooperated, built friendships, and even intermarried.”36

While many anti-Semitic practices declined following World War II, many of the rights and opportunities gained by women and African Americans during the 1940s would be curtailed in the decades that followed.

Following World War II, the United States emerged as a leader on the world stage. With its economy facing robust recovery as a result of its wartime production, the country was enjoying its prosperity. The country also faced struggles, as a housing shortage left returning soldiers and their families with few places to live, as industry and commerce moved out of the central business district and to cheaper land in outlying suburbs, and as the capitalist nations faced off against the Communist Soviet Union for world political, economic, military, and nuclear supremacy.37

Minneapolis businesses emerging from the Great Depression and World War II faced the challenges of increasing suburbanization and decentralization during the postwar era. Efforts to retain the historic prominence of downtown Minneapolis as a retail and office center led to extensive redevelopment of the central city, while efforts to retain industry within the city’s boundaries led to the creation of public and private industrial parks.

Following the war, the housing shortage faced by returning soldiers and their families led Mayor Hubert Humphrey to organize the relocation of surplus government-owned trailers from Ohio to north Minneapolis and to obtain over 400 trailers, prefabricated houses, metal barracks, and Quonset huts for veterans studying at the University of Minnesota and their families while new houses were constructed within the city limits and in outlying suburbs.38

34 Michael Gaines, “Minneapolis Numbers Game in Civil Rights is Dangerous,” Minneapolis Tribune¸ August 16, 1967. 35 http://wwhttps://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-cold- warw.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/hpc/landmarks/WCMSP-187104 36 https://www.mnopedia.org/event/civil-unrest-plymouth-avenue-minneapolis-1967 37 Library of Congress, “Revelations from the Russian Archives: The Soviet Union and the United States,” https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/sovi.html 38 Gary W. Reichard, “Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey,” Minnesota History 56, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 56 – 58 1.10

Figure 1.5 Rod Engelen and other Minneapolis city planners envisioning the new Gateway District. From the personal collection of Derek Engelen, courtesy of Historyopolis.

The construction of additional housing was not the only physical transformation taking place in Minneapolis. In an effort to mitigate the loss of business and industry that was accompanying suburban development, the City’s leaders once again turned their eyes to the “Gateway District.” Judith Martin and Anthony Goddard, in their seminal work on urban renewal in the Twin Cities, note that planners argued that demolishing the Gateway District and constructing new modern buildings would “reposition [the city] as a major financial and communications center.”39 In order to achieve this end, the Downtown Council was formed in 1955.40 Throughout the mid to late 1950s, the City of Minneapolis was able to secure federal funding to remake its urban core (for more on Urban Renewal and the City’s business and industry, see Chapters 3, 4, and 5).

The City’s transportation networks also underwent a dramatic shift in the 1950s, as streetcar lines were decommissioned and replaced by bus service and more and more citizens acquired automobiles. Parking lots and parking garages replaced many of the buildings that were demolished during the late 1950s and early 1960s.

39 Iric Nathanson, Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century: The Growth of an American City,” (Saint Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2010), 165-66. 40 Ibid. 1.11

Figure 1.6 A city bus, 1958. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

While the City of Minneapolis was undergoing dramatic physical change, it was also experiencing social changes. Following more than a decade of protest and legal battles, the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. The law “outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote.”41 While the law outlawed discrimination, it did not prevent its practice.

Following World War II, women continued to work outside of the home. A 1964 article in the Minneapolis Tribune entitled “Can Women Be Good Bosses? Business Firms Hesitate to Have Women Supervising Men,” noted that the country had more than 34 million women in its workforce.42 While a wide variety of previously unavailable jobs in industry, transportation, and business were made available to women during World War II, many of those jobs reverted to men after the war, with want ads in the Minneapolis Tribune reading “Help Wanted – Male,” and “Help Wanted – Female.” In 1968, the State Act Against Discrimination and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity law rendered such job postings discriminatory and illegal, but they persisted into the 1970s.43

41 National Park Service, “Civil Rights Act of 1964,” https://www.nps.gov/articles/civil-rights-act.htm 42 Judy Vick, “Can Women Be Good Bosses? Business Firms Hesitate to Have Women Supervising Men,” Minneapolis Tribune, Nov. 1, 1964. 43 Cheri Register, “When Women Went Public: Feminist Reforms in the 1970s,” Minnesota History, Summer 2008, 63. 1.12

As working women were fighting for opportunity, women who stayed home faced different challenges. A 1962 newspaper article in the Minneapolis Sunday Tribune entitled “The Executive Wife: Is She the Key to Success?” demonstrates the societal mores and constraints placed on women. According to the article,

Entertaining is one of the best ways to determine if the wife is good enough to enable a man to become a well-rounded executive.’ When men were up for an executive role, their wives were often interviewed by “the personnel man” about “whether she has ever lived away from her family, whether she participates in activities outside the home.” An interviewer stated “We can usually tell from her answers if she’s an outgoing type who will mix well or a recluse who will stay at home and complain.44

While women were fighting against stereotypes and systemic oppression, so were Minneapolis’s African American and Native American residents.

“Following World War II, African American soldiers returned to the United States… to find themselves deprived of equality and basic civil rights at home”…that they had fought for abroad. “Each year, from 1945 until 1957, Congress considered and failed to pass a civil rights bill. Congress finally passed limited Civil Rights Acts in 1957 and 1960, but they offered only moderate gains.”45 It was not until 1964 that a more comprehensive law was passed.

In Minneapolis, Civil Rights legislation lagged behind federal law. The City Council repeatedly failed to reach a consensus on a Civil Rights ordinance, and it was reaching a crisis point in 1967. One early morning in July, Harry Davis, one of Minneapolis’s black leaders and a leading voice in the City’s Civil Rights movement, was called to Plymouth Avenue on the City’s North Side by Mayor Art Naftalin. When Davis arrived, he saw “Plymouth Avenue shops burning from Penn Avenue all the way to Humboldt, eight blocks away.”46 Young African American residents of the North Side threw rocks at police officers and arson caused property damage on the commercial strip; the National Guard was called in to prevent a “riot.”

44 Lael Withrow, “The Executive Wife: Is She the Key to Success?” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, March 18, 1962. 45 Ibid. 46 Nathanson, Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century,115. 1.13

Figure 1.7 “Civilians and National Guardsman on Plymouth Avenue in North Minneapolis, July, 1967." Photograph courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Tensions surrounding the discrimination faced by African Americans remained high through the 1960s. In 1969, African American students at the University of Minnesota marched on Morrill Hall, the University’s administration building, to protest the University’s treatment of African American students and its absence of an African Studies Department.

Fights for equal rights and fair treatment would continue well into the 1970s, when Harry Davis would run for mayor and have his life threatened on a daily basis.47 Minneapolis’s gay community joined women and African Americans in their fight for fair treatment under the law. In 1971, Jack Baker “was granted a license in Blue Earth County to marry…James M. McConnell.” The two men repeatedly sought a marriage license in Hennepin County, as they lived in Minneapolis, and were repeatedly denied. In an effort to establish a legal relationship, McConnell adopted Baker in 1971.48 The couple, both law students at the University of Minnesota, was married in their home by a United Methodist minister. Blue Earth County considered the marriage invalid, because both partners were men, and the couple filed briefs with the Minnesota State

47Ibid. 48 “Adopted man to wed ‘parent’?” Minneapolis Tribune, August 31, 1971. 1.14

Supreme Court.49 The Court refused to hear Baker and McConnell’s case, and, throughout the 1970s, LGBTQ Minneapolitans had to fight for the right to gather in public, as bars repeatedly lost their liquor licenses and the City tried to put an end to Gay Pride parades.

Figure 1.8 Twin Cities Pride Parade, 1973. Photograph courtesy of the University of Minnesota.

While groups were fighting for their civil rights, the City of Minneapolis was still fighting to revive its downtown. It had completed its pedestrian mall, Nicollet Mall, in 1967 and was planning to have the mall terminate at a park plaza near the new Orchestra Hall, which was completed in 1974. Peavey Plaza, the park at the “end” of Nicollet Mall was completed in 1975. Cedar Square West, a mixed income housing complex changed the skyline of the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, while the IDS tower became the tallest building downtown.

49 Richard Gibson, “Homosexual Wedding,” Minneapolis Star, September 8, 1971. 1.15

CHAPTER TWO

University of Minnesota Bell Museum of Natural History, July 27, 1940. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

THE GREAT DEPRESSION, THE NEW DEAL, AND WORLD WAR II

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Glenwood Park, June 26, 1940. 2.5 Figure 2.2: University of Minnesota Bell Museum of Natural History, July 27, 1940. 2.7

Figure 2.3: History of the National Guard by Lucia Wiley in the Minneapolis Armory, c. 2.8 1940. Figure 2.4: Minneapolis Armory, November 13, 1935. 2.9 Figure 2.5: Glenwood Park, May 1, 1935. 2.10 Figure 2.6: Retaining walls along Minnehaha Creek, c. 1938. 2.12 Figure 2.7: Interior of Minneapolis Service Men’s Center, 807 Hennepin Avenue, c. 1943. 2.16 Figure 2.8: Flour City Ornamental Iron Works, 1935. 2.18

1930 – 1945: THE GREAT DEPRESSION, THE NEW DEAL, AND WORLD WAR II GREAT DEPRESSION

The economic catastrophe known as the Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn that began in the late 1920s. In the United States, the downturn began as a recession in the summer of 1929 but declined in earnest following a monumental crash in the stock market in October of that year (known as the Great Crash of 1929). Underconsumption led to a decline in industrial production and real gross domestic product, severe deflation, and high levels of unemployment, causing extreme suffering across the country. Though the American economy showed small signs of improvement in 1933, recovery was slowed by a recession in 1937, and the country continued to feel the effects of the Great Depression into the early 1940s.1

The severity and length of the Great Depression shaped an entire decade of United States history, reaching beyond the economic into the political, social, and cultural realms; in Minneapolis, the economic crisis shaped local politics and social dynamics. Perhaps the most widely touted effect of the Great Depression in the U.S. was the increased involvement of the federal government in the economy and society, largely as a result of the “New Deal,” a series of domestic programs implemented by the federal government beginning in 1933 to facilitate economic recovery.2 In Minneapolis, federal aid produced buildings and infrastructure that provide a visible legacy of the Great Depression today. Local Politics and Relief

Minneapolis entered the Great Depression in a weakened economic state. During the 1920s, the city’s position as the country’s primary center for flour milling was challenged by urban centers to the east and south. Agriculture, the basis of the state economy, was crippled by overproduction of agricultural products, land deflation, and a decrease in foreign demand.3 The already-strained economic conditions of the 1920s and the local economy’s dependence on consumer industries over heavy manufacturing somewhat moderated the immediate effects of the Depression in Minneapolis.4 Nevertheless, the presence of the economic crisis was undeniable. By the end of 1931, employment in Minneapolis had dropped by over 25%, and conditions grew steadily worse through the early

1 Gene Smiley, “Great Depression,” in Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd ed., ed. David R. Henderson (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2007), accessed August 15, 2019, https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html; Norman K. Risjord, A Popular History of Minnesota (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 190; Robert S. McElvaine, The Great Depression: America, 1929 – 1941 (Toronto, Canada: Fitzhenry & Whitside, Ltd., 1984), 25 – 50, 72 – 74, 134, 160, 297 – 299. 2 McElvaine, The Great Depression, 138 – 169, 249 – 269, 306. 3 Laura E. Weber, “‘Gentiles Preferred:’ Minneapolis Jews and Employment, 1920 – 1950,” Minnesota History 52, no. 5 (Spring 1991): 169, http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/52/v52i05p166-182.pdf. 4 Weber, “’Gentiles Preferred,’” 170; Raymond L. Koch, “Politics and Relief in Minnesota during the 1930s,” Minnesota History 41, no. 4 (Winter 1968): 153, http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/41/v41i04p153-170.pdf; George Dimitri Tselos, “The Mineapolis Labor Movement in the 1930s,” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1970), 60 – 61; George Tselos, “Self-help and Sauerkraut: The Organized Unemployed, Inc., of Minneapolis,” Minnesota History 45, no. 8 (Winter 1977): 308, http://collections.mnhs.org/mnhistorymagazine/articles/45/v45i08p306-320.pdf.

2.1

1930s.5 (For more information on the impact of the Great Depression on Minneapolis businesses, see Chapter 3, Business and Industry.)

Increasing numbers of unemployed residents turned to outside sources for aid. Between 1929 and 1933, the number of Minneapolis families accepting municipal relief increased from 1,633 to 14,592, placing a huge strain on the city’s division of public relief. Private agencies, also overwhelmed by the Depression, were unable to fill the void, and unemployed persons, worker unions, and left-wing political activists called for increased support for city-funded aid.6 Throughout much of the decade, local politics centered on the municipal relief issue, including the mayoral elections of Farmer-Labor candidate William A. Anderson in 1931, Republican candidate A. G. Bainbridge in 1933, and Farmer-Labor candidate Thomas E. Latimer in 1935.7 Across the state as a whole, the political spectrum shifted left during the decade as Minnesotans abandoned the Republican Party’s support for big business in favor of the Farmer-Labor Party’s government-led programs designed to mitigate the effects of the Depression. This shift was also apparent in the 1932 and 1936 presidential elections, when Democratic candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt received a majority of the state’s votes and the presidency, making him the first Democratic candidate to win Minnesota since 1858.8

1932 saw a marked increase in the effects of the Depression across the Midwest and in Minneapolis, and the “Winter of Despair” (November 1932 - March 1933) put the economy at a near standstill.9 In 1932, the city of Minneapolis issued over $2 million in bonds to finance the city’s direct relief programs.10 By the end of 1935, the relief department had increased from a staff of 7 in 1930 to 350 employees, and the average number of monthly cases had ballooned from about 2,000 to over 21,000. This expansion led the department to decentralize from its offices in City Hall in 1933, adding three district offices in South, North, and Northeast Minneapolis (locations unknown).11 Though the Minneapolis economy began to recover in the mid-1930s, the highpoint in city relief was not reached until the winter of 1937 – 1938, when the City handled 17,654 relief cases in the month of March.12

5 Raymond L. Koch, “The Development of Public Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1929 – 1941” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 1967), 1 – 61; Alvin H. Hansen, Dreng Bjornaraa, and Tillman M. Sogge, The Decline of Unemployment in the 1930 – 1931 Depression in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth, University of Minnesota Employment Stabilization Research Institute, vol. 1, no. 5 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1932), 12 – 13, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/101824760. 6 Tselos, “Self-help and Sauerkraut,” 308; Koch, “Politics and Relief in Minneapolis during the 1930s,” 153 – 156; Tselos, “The Minneapolis Labor Movement,” 61. 7 Tselos, “The Minneapolis Labor Movement,” 61; Koch, “Politics and Relief in Minneapolis,” 155 - 160. 8 Jerome D. Tweton, Depression: Minnesota in the Thirties (Fargo, ND: North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, 1981), 71 – 73; Joseph Stipanovich, City of Lakes: An Illustrated History of Minneapolis (Woodland Hills, CA: Windsor Publications, 1982), 115, 175; Risjord, A Popular History of Minnesota, 194. Farmer-Labor programs included a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures, reductions in homestead taxes, a state income tax, old-age pensions, and increased funding for relief. 9 Weber, “‘Gentiles Preferred,’” 170; Tweton, Depression: Minnesota in the Thirties, 9. 10 Koch, “Politics and Relief in Minneapolis,” 155; M. U. S. Kjorlaug, “Historical Review, Division of Public Relief, Four Years of Depression, 1931-1932-1933-1934,” c. 1935, p. 48 – 49, James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library. 11 Koch, “Politics and Relief in Minneapolis,” 159; M. U. S. Kjorlaug, “Historical Review,” p. 1 – 4; “Division of Public Relief, Minneapolis, Minnesota,” c. 1934, p. 5, Hennepin County Library. Shortly thereafter, the Executive and Administrative Offices of the division were moved to the downtown Hodgson building. By 1935, the division also operated a Men’s Bureau at a separate location, and Administrative Offices for the General Hospital in the Sexton Building. 12 Weber, “Gentiles Preferred,” 172; Koch, “Politics and Relief,” 169.

2.2

The Depression also saw attempts by the private sector to aid the unemployed.13 These included the Organized Unemployed, Inc., one of many “self-help” organizations established across the United States after the onset of the Great Depression. Established by Reverend George H. Mecklenburg of Wesley Methodist Church, the Organized Unemployed attempted to provide an alternative to government relief by negotiating an exchange of labor for goods or scrip money. From its headquarters at the former Girls Vocational High School (c. 1914, razed, 330 South 12th Street) donated by the Board of Education, the organization coordinated a variety of employment activities, as well as housing and employment services. Ultimately, it could not remain financially solvent and was absorbed into federal aid programs before being disbanded.14 In another local example, the Minneapolis Citizens’ Alliance (a powerful coalition of Minneapolis employers and businessmen) sponsored a “Job-a-Week” program to find temporary jobs for unemployed city residents.15 Private organizations, such as the Family Welfare Agency and the Salvation Army, also engaged in efforts to provide material relief.16 The New Deal in Minneapolis

A lack of local resources led city leaders in Minneapolis and across the country to turn to the federal government for aid.17 Between 1933 and 1938, the federal government enacted a series of domestic programs intended to revive the American economy by providing direct financial aid and work relief for the unemployed and reforming various aspects of American life, including industry, agriculture, waterpower, labor, and housing. Known as the “New Deal,” this program of aid greatly expanded the federal government’s services and role in the economy.18 Administered through federal agencies such as Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Public Works Administration (PWA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA; later known as the Work Projects Administration),19 federal funds created jobs and put more than $1,080,000,000 into the Minnesota economy between 1933 and 1939.20

Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA)

Minneapolis received its first Federal aid funds in 1933, when the Minneapolis Board of Public Welfare received its first funds from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA),

13 Dave Kenney, Twin Cities Album: A Visual History (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 157 – 159. 14 Tselos, “Self-help and Sauerkraut,” 307 – 314. 15 Lois Quam and Peter J. Rachleff, “Keeping Minneapolis an Open-Shop Town: The Citizens’ Alliance in the 1930s,” Minnesota History 50, no. 3 (Fall 1986): 105 – 110. http://libcom.org/files/v50i03p105-117.pdf. 16 Koch, “Politics and Relief,” 153 – 154. 17 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 175 – 176; McElvaine, The Great Depression, 151. 18 McElvaine, The Great Depression, 138 – 169, 249 – 269, 306. 19 Though the FERA, CWA and WPA provided a wide variety of jobs for individuals seeking work relief, the following summary focuses on the construction, repair, and development of public buildings, infrastructure, and landscape sponsored by each program, as these had the greatest impact on Minneapolis’ built environment. For more information on the accomplishment of each program in Minnesota, see Rolf T. Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1933 – 1941,” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, 1993, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/0f6651f7-4cb5-4324- b015-53c82c6a97f2. 20 Tweton, Depression, 17 – 25, 43; Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 158.

2.3

established in July of 1933.21 Under FERA, Minnesota’s State Emergency Relief Administration (SERA) was allowed to distribute federal funds to municipalities for both cash and work relief. Across the state, FERA provided funds for direct aid, a rural rehabilitation program, a transient relief program, and work relief. FERA funded schools, lunch and immunization programs, distribution of surpluses, sewing projects, school renovation, road improvements, and construction of recreational facilities.22 Beginning in April of 1934, work relief under FERA was managed under the Emergency Work Relief Program and included both non-construction and construction projects. The latter category included construction of highways, public buildings, bridges, sewers, utilities, recreational facilities, waterways, parks and airports.23 Minneapolis work projects sponsored by the Emergency Work Relief Program appear to have included citywide street and site grading; repairs to public infrastructure such as curbs, street signs, sewer and storm drains, and water works; repairs to city buildings and park property; and repair and rehabilitation of schools.24 FERA was discontinued at the end of 1935.25

Civil Works Administration (CWA)

In November of 1933, the federal government temporarily replaced the emergency work relief programs of FERA with work relief programs sponsored by a new agency, the CWA. Administered through local offices of the federal government, the CWA sponsored work projects similar to those under FERA.26 By January of 1934, 19,000 Minneapolis residents were employed under the CWA.27 Minneapolis projects included “street openings and grading…filling of lowlands and park forestry work, opening and repairing of all skating rinks and other recreational facilities, [and] the improvement of Bassett’s Creek” as well as repairs to buildings and other infrastructure owned by the City.28 CWA workers began work at the Glenwood Park (now known as Theodore Wirth Park) lagoons (1930s, Theodore Wirth Park in Golden Valley), work later completed by the WPA and CCC.29 CWA workers completed several survey projects within the city, including a street

21 Anderson, “Federal Relief Construction,” E27 – E29; Tweton, Depression, 19. Prior to FERA, the federal government had provided loans to states and local governments through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) under the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932. The RFC ended the program in May of 1933, and it is unclear if Minneapolis received funds under this act. 22 Final Report on the WPA Program, 1935 – 42 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), 2 – 3; Tweton, Depression, 21; Kjorlaug, “Historical Review,” 1 – 3, 29; Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E32 - E38; Tweton, Depression, 19. In 1932 and 1933, the federal government also distributed flour and surplus commodities to Minneapolis’ Division of Public Relief. 23 Final Report on the WPA Program, 4; Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E38 – E40. 24 Kjorlaug, “Historical Review,” 60 – 63; A c. 1935 report by the Minneapolis Division of Public Relief includes a list of work relief projects accomplished in the city to that date; however, some of the projects included in this list may have been financed by the WPA rather than FERA. 25 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E40. 26 Final Report on the WPA Program, 3 – 4; Tweton, Depression, 21. 27 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E45. 28 For a complete list of CWA projects completed at the time of the c. 1935 report, see Kjorlaug, “Historical Division,” 51 – 54. 29 106 Group, Theodore Wirth Regional Park Cultural Landscape Study for the Blue Line Extension LRT Project (prepared for HDR, September 2015), 18; “13 More Civil Works Projects Are Approved,” Minneapolis Star, November 27, 1933. Though Theodore Wirth Park is located in Golden Valley, it is managed by the Minneapolis park system.

2.4

traffic survey, a housing survey, and health surveys.30 By the time most employment under the CWA had ended in March of 1934, the CWA had put at least $18,413,709 into the state’s economy.31

Figure 2.1 The CWA began work on the lagoons at Glenwood Park, work that was later completed by the WPA. The lagoons remain some of the most visible legacy of the CWA’s work in Minneapolis. Glenwood Park (now known as Theodore Wirth Regional Park), June 26, 1940. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society. Public Works Administration (PWA)

The direct and work relief provided by FERA was supplemented by the Public Works Administration (PWA), established in June of 1933 under the authority of Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Unlike FERA, the PWA was not a relief agency. Instead, according to the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form “Federal Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1933 – 1941,” by historian Rolf T. Anderson, “its purpose was to stimulate economic recovery by providing employment for workers in the building trades and in the industries supplying construction materials, and by “priming the pump” of industry and increasing purchasing power by placing large sums of money in circulation.”32 The PWA provided grants and

30 Kjorlaug, “Historical Division,” 50. 31 Final Report on the WPA Program, 1; “Civil Works Administration,” The Living New Deal, accessed August 26, 2019, https://livingnewdeal.org/glossary/civil-works-administration-cwa-1933/. 32 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E-1.

2.5

loans for public works projects such as construction and repair of public buildings and infrastructure, conservation and development of natural resources, construction or alteration of low-cost housing, “slum clearance” projects, railroad maintenance, and construction of military housing, naval vessels, and aircraft. After the formation of the Works Project Administration (WPA) in 1935, the PWA assumed responsibility for all new construction projects larger than $25,000, while the WPA handled smaller projects. The last PWA projects were substantially complete by 1940. The agency sponsored 666 projects across Minnesota – including post offices, schools, armories, bridges, roads, and parks – with $46,460,445 in grants and loans.33

Some notable PWA projects in Minneapolis included the Minneapolis Armory (1936, 500 – 530 6th Street South), the Bell Museum of Natural History on the campus of the University of Minnesota (1940, 10 Church Street Southeast), and the University of Minnesota’s Coffman Memorial Union (1940, remodeled mid-1970s and 2003; 300 Washington Avenue Southeast). Sumner Field (1938, razed 1998, north Minneapolis), Minnesota’s first and only PWA-funded public housing project, was constructed in north Minneapolis between 1937 and 1938 with PWA funding. Many of these buildings were constructed in what has become known as the PWA Moderne style, a blend of Classical and Moderne design elements (the Bell Museum of Natural History, Figure 2.2, exemplifies this blend of styles). The federal government’s preference for Classical architecture was informed by the belief that classical architecture communicated the ethics of democracy. At the same time, the interchangeable work areas facilitated by Modern architects were particularly useful for government organizations occupying public buildings.34 According to architectural historians David Gebhard and Tom Martinson, PWA Moderne buildings typical feature: • Symmetrical form and classical horizontal proportions • Piers (used instead of columns) occasionally fluted but generally with no capitals or bases • Windows arranged as recessed vertical panels • Surfaces usually smooth and flat with terra-cotta ornamentation • Smooth stone sheathing; polished marble, granite, and terrazzo within and without • Relief sculpture and interior murals.35

The downtown Minneapolis U.S. Post Office (1934, 100 1st Street South), while apparently not constructed with PWA funds, is also a good example of the PWA Moderne style.36 Some projects,

33 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E2 – E8; David Gebhard and Tom Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 15 – 16. 34 Larry Millet, Lost Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1992), 257; Judith Robinson and Laura Bobeczko, Robinson Associates; Paul Lusignan, National Park Service; and Jeffrey Shrimpton, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, “Public Housing in the United States, 1933 – 1949,” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, December 1, 2004, http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/publications/pubhouseusa.pdf, Appendix IV, p. 9; “Families to Move Into New Sumner Field Homes Dec. 16,” Minneapolis Star, November 26, 1938; Lois Craig, The Federal Presence: Architecture Politics, and Symbols in United States Government Building (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984), 280 – 283; Gebhard and Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 15 – 16. 35 Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 420. 36 Joseph Marseca, WPA Buildings: Architecture and Art of the New Deal (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 2016), 49; “Street Improvement Proceedings,” Minneapolis Star, December 24, 1931. Plans for the construction of a new post office were already

2.6 such as the Colonial Revival-style Pioneer Hall at the University of Minnesota (1934, remodeled 2019, 615 Fulton Street Southeast), were designed in other architectural styles.37 PWA buildings often utilized local materials, and many were decorated with sculptures and murals obtained through the U.S. Treasury Department’s Section of Painting and Sculpture (later Section of Fine Arts) program, which solicited artwork for federal buildings, typically artwork which depicted regional history. Lucia Wiley’s History of the National Guard mural in the Minneapolis Armory was commissioned under the WPA’s Federal Art Project (see below), which ran concurrently the U.S. Treasury Department’s program.38

Figure 2.2 The PWA was responsible for the construction of the Bell Museum of Natural History at the University of Minnesota. The recessed windows, smooth stone sheathing, low relief sculptural elements all help identify this building as designed in the PWA Moderne style. University of Minnesota Bell Museum of Natural History, July 27, 1940. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society. underway in 1931, though it is possible that the PWA provided funds for the building’s construction in 1933 or 1934. 37 Gebhard and Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 15 - 16; Larry Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 129 – 131; C. W. Short and R. Stanley Brown, Public Buildings: A Survey of Architecture of Projects Constructed by Federal and Other Governmental Bodies Between the Years 1933 and 1939 with the Assistance of the Public Works Administration (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1939), 98, 302; Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E9; Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 420. 38 Gebhard and Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 15 – 16; Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E9 – E10; Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr. “The WPA Federal Art Projects in Minnesota, 1935-1942,” Minnesota History 53, no. 5 (Spring 1993): 179, http://www.mnhs.org/exhibits/wpa/v53i05p170-183.pdf.

2.7

Figure 2.3 Lucia Wiley’s mural in the Minneapolis Armory was commissioned by the WPA’s Federal Arts Project. History of the National Guard by Lucia Wiley in the Minneapolis Armory, c. 1940. Minnesota Historical Society.

2.8

Figure 2.4 The Minneapolis Armory with its symmetrical form, arrangement of piers and recessed vertically stacked windows, smooth stone sheathing, and interior murals is an excellent example of the PWA Moderne style. Minneapolis Armory, November 13, 1935. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)

The Civilian Conservation Corps (originally the Emergency Conservation Work), established by executive order in March of 1933, provided work for unemployed single men between 18 and 25 years old, most recruited from large urban centers such as Minneapolis. The CCC carried out conservation work in national and state forests and national, state, county, and metropolitan parks. After processing at Fort Snelling (or Grand Rapids after 1937), Minnesota recruits were sent to one of dozens of camps in the state. Though most camps were located in Northern Minnesota, in 1935 a CCC camp was established in Glenwood Park (now known as Theodore Wirth Regional Park) in Golden Valley to develop an area of Bassett’s creek. By the time the CCC program ended in 1942, it had employed 84,000 Minnesota residents and invested 3.5 million days of labor in forestry, park, and soil conservation projects across the state.39

39 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E11 – E13; “CCC to Beautify Glenwood Park with New Lagoons,” Minneapolis Journal, February 7, 1935; “220 CCC Men to Be Put to Work at Beautifying Bassett’s Creek, Minneapolis Star, February 7, 1935.

2.9

Figure 2.5 CCC workers were housed in tents at Glenwood Park. Glenwood Park, May 1, 1935. “Glenwood Park Tent City Rises,” Minneapolis Tribune, May 1, 1935.

Works Progress/Work Projects Administration (WPA)

The Works Progress Administration (renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) was established by Executive Order No. 7034 in May of 1935. The WPA assumed responsibility for the work relief program of FERA and provided funds for work relief projects sponsored by governmental agencies at all levels of government.40 By its termination in 1943, the WPA had provided approximately $25,000,000 in funding for projects in Minnesota, affecting roughly 600,000 of the state’s residents.41 Historian Rolf Anderson notes that while some construction and conservation projects sponsored by the WPA were similar to those completed by the PWA and CCC, “a broad range of service projects were also performed which typically employed professionals, white-collar workers, and women.” These varied projects ranged from public activity projects (such as adult education, library services, and museum projects), to research projects (such as social and economic surveys and studies, public records projects, and historical records surveys), to

40 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E48, E56. 41 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E67.

2.10 welfare projects (such as school lunch programs, gardening and canning projects, and hospital aide projects). One notable public activity project was the Federal Project No. 1, which involved the sponsorship of music, art, writers, and theater projects. Approximately three-fourths of the cost of the WPA during its eight-year lifespan (1935 – 1943), however, was devoted to construction projects.42

In Minneapolis, WPA construction projects represented a significant investment in public buildings, infrastructure, and landscapes. A 1942 report of the agency’s activities in the city prepared by the WPA and the Minneapolis Board of Education listed the following accomplishments:

• Infrastructure, transportation, and landscape improvements: 30 miles of street paving, 60 miles of curb and gutter, 25 miles of sidewalk, 64,345 street and traffic signs, 212,550 feet of alleys paved, graded and widened, 313,781 feet of sewer constructed, 15,200 feet of water main installed, 5,555 square yards of parking area constructed, 52,765 lineal feet of retaining walls constructed, 10 new bridges constructed, 11 city garages of 78-car capacity constructed, and 6,316 square yards of riprap installed • Schools: 113 public schools reconditioned and expanded • Parks and recreational facilities: 63 playgrounds and 8 high school athletic fields enlarged and improved; 5 new parks established and 13 parks reconditioned • Libraries: 14 branch and main libraries improved and remodeled • Municipal buildings: 22 municipal buildings, including 7 fire stations and 4 police stations, reconditioned and modernized

Specific construction projects listed included 30,000 feet of new runways, new hangars, and a new administration building at the Wold-Chamberlin Field (now known as the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport) (1920, later alterations and additions, Highway 5 and Glumack Drive); improvements to the Minneapolis Municipal River Terminal (razed); construction of 3 new buildings and remodeling of 17 buildings at the Veterans Hospital; and the construction of masonry retaining walls (c. 1930s – early 1940s, Minnehaha State Park at 4801 Minnehaha Drive South) at Minnehaha State Park (now known as Minnehaha Regional Park) in South Minneapolis.43

42 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E50 – E53. 43 Minneapolis Board of Education with the Work Projects Administration, W. P. A. Accomplishments in Minnesota, Bulletin No. 62, Social Studies Research Materials (N.p.: 1942), 1 – 7; “RIVER: Potentially Picturesque Street Spotted,” Minneapolis Tribune, February 14, 1971. It is unclear if any of the buildings at the Veterans Hospital remodeled by the WPA remain.

2.11

Figure 2.6 Retaining walls along Minnehaha Creek were constructed by the WPA and are characteristic of the types of infrastructure projects that the WPA constructed throughout Minneapolis and the country at large. Retaining walls along Minnehaha Creek, c. 1938. Walter B. Dahlberg, The Story of W.P.A. in the Minneapolis Parks, Parkways, and Playgrounds for 1938 ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Board of Park Commissioners, 1939).

Unlike the PWA, which hired private contractors to manage construction projects, the WPA itself acted as the general contractor for all projects. Though the WPA did not mandate architectural styles for construction projects, the agency encouraged the use of straightforward, simple designs that could be executed without highly skilled workers and be efficiently constructed. Consequently, Moderne-style architecture, including the Classical/Moderne hybrid style known as PWA Moderne, was often employed. Program requirements also led local government sponsors in Minnesota to utilize native materials such as limestone, granite, timber, and materials salvaged from demolished structures, which further impacted the architectural styles chosen. Buildings were sometimes ornamented with artwork obtained through the WPA Federal Art Project (FAP), most commonly murals in public buildings that depicted regional manifestations of American history, legend, symbolism and landscapes. During the first five years of the FAP, artists designed 35 building murals and 18 sculptures as well as art in numerous other mediums across the state. The original Walker Art Center (1927, razed in 1969) was reorganized and renovated using FAP funds. In addition, the University of Minnesota’s University Gallery (now known as the Weisman Art Museum), founded in 1934 in the University of Minnesota’s Northrup Auditorium (1929, 84 Church Street Southeast) utilized WPA funds to develop touring exhibitions from 1938 until the end of the WPA program.44

44 Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs,” E59 – E66; Thomas O’Sullivan, “A Job and a Movement: The WPA Federal Art Project in Minnesota,” Minnesota History 53, No. 5 (Spring 1993): 186, 191, http://www.mnhs.org/exhibits/wpa/v53i05p184-195.pdf; Hendrickson, “The WPA Federal Art Projects in Minnesota,” 178 – 182; Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, 261 - 265; Florence

2.12

Cityscape and Society

The Depression’s impact on Minneapolis’ built environment stretched beyond the buildings constructed or renovated by New Deal agencies. Across the state, economic hardship vastly diminished the amount of new construction during the 1930s.45 In downtown Minneapolis, with the exception of large public projects such as the Minneapolis Post Office and the Minneapolis Armory, the period between 1930 and 1950 saw more destruction than notable construction. A lack of money for maintenance or repair sometimes led to the demolition of old, inefficient buildings; theaters, office buildings, and houses were especially vulnerable. Properties repossessed by the city after owners defaulted on property taxes were also sometimes razed. Architectural historian Larry Millet notes that “between 1930 and 1945, Minneapolis lost such important monuments as the West Hotel, the Samuel Gale house, the Francis Little house, the Metropolitan Opera House, the first Orpheum Theater, the Boston Block, the National Bank of Commerce, the Citizens Bank, the Northwestern National Bank, the Oneida Building, and the Nicollet National Bank.”46 Interestingly, the stock market crash of 1929 did not immediately halt residential construction; a greater volume of speculative housing was constructed between 1929 and 1932 than had been constructed during the previous few years. Most residential construction had ended by 1932, and did not resume in part until 1937 – 1938 (for more information on residential development in Minneapolis, see Chapter 5).47

One of the most fundamental changes in Minneapolis during the years of the Great Depression was a significant growth in the power of organized labor.48 In an attempt to foster industrial recovery, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (and later the National Labor Relations Act of 1935) affirmed employees’ rights to establish unions and bargain collectively, stimulating worker organization in Minneapolis and across the country. Sparked by the partial victories achieved by local truckers during the 1934 Teamsters Strike, Minneapolis labor unions during the mid- to late 1930s carried out strikes at the plants of several firms, including the Flour City Ornamental Iron Company Plant (1901, 2637 27th Avenue South) and the Strutwear Knitting Company Building (1936, 1010 7th Street South). These strikes loosened the power of the Minneapolis Citizens’ Alliance, an organization of the city’s businessmen and wealthy capitalists, over organized labor.49 Several years of labor victories were somewhat tempered in 1939, however, when the federal

Taaffe, “Steiglitz Gallery Paintings to Be Shown at University,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, January 17, 1937; “Weisman Art Museum,” Hennepin County Library, accessed August 26, 2019, https://www.hclib.org/programs/genealogy-local- history/manuscripts-archives/archives-container/finding-aids/u-z/weisman-art-museum; Marseca, WPA Buildings, 9 – 15. 45 Gebhard and Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 15; Borchert et al., Legacy of Minneapolis, 161 – 62. Residential housing continued to be built through 1931. See Chapter 5, Residential Development, more information on residential development during the 1930s. 46 Larry Millet, Lost Twin Cities, 259 – 260. 47 Borchert et al, Legacy of Minneapolis, 161 – 162. 48 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 115. 49 Quam and Rachleff, “Keeping Minneapolis an Open-Shop Town,” 105 – 117; Iric Nathanson, Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century: The Growth of an American City (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2010), 69 – 91; Tweton, Depression, 23 – 39.

2.13

government prosecuted dozens of Twin Cities WPA workers who had participated in a nationwide strike protesting increased hours and decreased wages.50

For black Minneapolis residents, who made up only 0.9 percent of the city’s total population in 1940, the labor movements of the 1930s and 40s provided a means of achieving greater political influence. By integrating black settlement houses into state and federal social services and hiring African Americans for jobs that were previously closed to them, the New Deal helped open the door to black participation in the labor movement, both in Minnesota and across the country. The 1930s saw the formation of the first integrated union in Minnesota, Local 665 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union. The AFL trade union was organized by several leaders of other unions, including Anthony Brutus Cassius, head of the Minneapolis Curtis Hotel black waiters’ union. Other African American leaders in Minneapolis, including Albert L. Allen Jr. and Nellie Stone Johnson, achieved influence and political clout through their involvement with the labor movement. Additionally, the labor movement fueled the activism of ordinary black citizens and encouraged the establishment of all-black interest groups and organizations that would fight for increased African American participation in public life.51

The Depression’s effects stretched beyond labor relations into other areas of social relations. Anti- Semitism reached its peak in Minneapolis during the Depression, as poor economic conditions fueled the persistent prejudice of many of the city’s residents towards their Jewish neighbors.52

In 1933, the number of employed persons in Minneapolis began a slow but steady increase. Unlike elsewhere in the country, later recessions in 1937 and 1940 did not drastically cut employment in Minneapolis.53 Though signs of recovery and endurance were evident during the 1930s, it was U.S involvement in World War II that would catalyze the full revitalization of the Minneapolis and national economies.54 WORLD WAR II

The global conflict known as World War II began in September of 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. By the middle of 1940, numerous countries from six continents had entered the conflict on the Allied and Axis sides. At the outset of the war, the United States declared neutrality, and U.S. public opinion was generally opposed to intervention. This was true in Minneapolis, where an isolationist standpoint prevailed among the city’s residents. As the war continued, however, the United States found itself increasingly drawn into the world conflict, beginning with the provision of military supplies to the Allied forces under the terms of the September 1940 “Lend-Lease” Act and

50 Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 161 – 163; Herman Erickson, “WPA Strike and Trials of 1939,” Minnesota History 42, no. 6 (Summer 1971): 202 – 214, http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/42/v42i06p202-214.pdf. 51 Jennifer Delton, “Labor, Politics, and African American Identity in Minneapolis, 1930 – 1950,” Minnesota History 57, no. 8 (Winter 2001-2002): 418 – 434, http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/57/v57i08p418-434.pdf 52 Weber, “’Gentiles Preferred,’” 167, 171, 179. 53 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 115. 54 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116; McElvaine, The Great Depression, 320.

2.14

culminating in the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war on Japan and entered the conflict on the side of the Allies.55

Minneapolis’ development from this point until the end of World War II in August of 1945 was undeniably influenced by the demands of U.S. military engagement, reaching beyond direct military recruitment and training to the city’s industries, workforce, and social/cultural landscape. Minneapolis industries shifted their focus to production of wartime goods and created innovative new products, the city’s labor force found high demand for their services, and the social dynamics of Minneapolis responded to the wartime environment. While new construction was limited by wartime restrictions, the legacy of World War II can be seen today in Minneapolis’ manufacturing facilities, the Wold-Chamberlin Field, and the Fort Snelling army post.56

Military and Industry When war commenced, Minneapolis residents found various ways to contribute. Some joined the approximately 300,000 Minnesotans who would serve in the military during the war.57 In the two days immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Minneapolis military recruiting offices (including offices in the Metropolitan Life Building, the Federal Office Building at Washington Avenue South and Third Avenue South, and the Federal Courts Building at Third Street and Marquette Avenue) were flooded with applicants, with nearly 1,500 individuals volunteering.58 Fort Snelling, an active army post just southeast of Minneapolis, was utilized as a Recruit Reception Station, inducting more than 25 million men between 1941 and 1945.59 In addition to male recruits, the war drew Minnesota women to the Twin Cities to serve in the Women’s Army Corps (WAC), Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASP), the Naval Reserve’s Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES), coast guard and marine women’s corps, and as army and navy nurses.60 Specialized army units, including military police, the Military Railway Service, the Military Intelligence Service Language School (composed primarily of second-generation Japanese-

55 Dave Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War: The Home Front During World War II (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 194 – 201; Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 180 – 181; “Timeline of World War II,” PBS.org, accessed September 5, 2019, https://www.pbs.org/thewar/at_war_timeline_1941.htm; “Lend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years of World War II,” Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute, accessed September 5, 2019, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/lend-lease. 56 Fort Snelling is not located within the geographic boundaries of Minneapolis and is therefore outside the geographic scope of this context study. For more information on the history of Fort Snelling during World War II, see Tamara Halvorsen Ludt, Historic Structure Report: Cavalry Barracks – Buildings 17, 18 and Link, Fort Snelling, Minnesota (prepared for Minnesota Historical Society, July 2018). 57 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 230. 58 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 17 – 19; “Application Flood Hits Enlistment Centers,” Minneapolis Star Journal, December 8, 1941; “Recruiting Record Is Set in City,” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, December 10, 1941; “1,500 Seek to Enlist at City Service Centers,” Minneapolis Star Journal, December 10, 1941. 59 Stephen E. Osman, “Fort Snelling’s Last War,” Roots: Minnesota During World War II 17, no. 2 (Winter 1989), 17 – 18. 60 Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 181.

2.15

Americans, or Nisei), and the Norwegian-speaking 99th Infantry Battalion, also trained at the Fort.61 At the nearby Wold-Chamberlin Field, the navy operated a flight training program.62

In an effort to entertain Fort Snelling recruits who often frequented the Twin Cities, by 1942 both Minneapolis and St. Paul had opened servicemen’s clubs. Run by the United Service Organizations, the clubs offered floor shows, holiday dinners, dancing, and gift buying and wrapping services. For servicemen. In addition to the Minneapolis Servicemen’s Center (original construction date unknown, razed, 807 Hennepin Avenue), the USO sponsored programs and shows at the Fort Snelling recreation hall, the Minneapolis Armory, the Wold-Chamberlin Field navy base, and other locations.63

Figure 2.7 The Minneapolis Service Men’s Center provided recreation opportunities for servicemen being inducted at the Fort Snelling Recruit Reception Station. Interior of Minneapolis Service Men’s Center, c. 1943. Minnesota Historical Society.

Though the United States’ economy had made some gains during the mid-1930s, the start of World War II in 1939 and the U.S. entrance into the war in December of 1941 finally brought the country out of the Great Depression.64 Even before the United States entered the war, the sale of military supplies to the Allies beginning in 1940 stimulated the country’s economy. Minnesota did not

61 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 33. 62 Lucile M. Kane and Alan Ominsky, Twin Cities: A Pictorial History of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1983), 194; Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, 177. 63 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 33 – 35; “225,800 Service Men Here Entertained at USO Shows,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune and Star Journal, October 11, 1942. 64 Weber, “Gentiles Preferred,” 178 – 179.

2.16 immediately receive government contracts for the production of such supplies, but in November of 1940, the National Defense Advisory Commission established a field office in Minneapolis; a few months later, Minnesota sent a lobbyist to Washington D.C. to pursue government contracts.65 By the second half of 1941, the federal government was pouring over a half a billion dollars into defense contracts with Minnesota companies, and employment in Minnesota manufacturing had increased by 28%.66 The country’s rebounding economy brought an end to federal programs such as the CCC, NYA, and WPA, which ended in 1943.67

Many Minneapolis residents had found new jobs at local businesses and industries revived by wartime production, as firms with government contracts engaged in production of wartime goods.68 Some industries in Minneapolis and the surrounding metropolitan region produced supplies and equipment within their established fields of specialty, while others branched out into new areas of production (for more information on the effects of World War II on industry, see Chapter 3, Business and Industry).69

65 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 108 – 110. 66 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 5 – 6. 67 Robert G. Neal, “Welfare in Hennepin County: Depression, War, and Civil Rights (1934 – 1965),” Hennepin History 60, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 9. 68 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 5 – 6, 108 – 110. 69 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116 – 117; Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 85, 108 – 110; Kara Sorensen, “Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified November 7, 2018, http://www.mnopedia.org/place/twin-cities-army-ammunition-plant; James K. Hosmer Special Collections, “Minneapolis Moline Power Implement Company Collection,” October 25, 2016, https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs- and-Services/Finding-aids/M/2000-157-Minneapolis-Moline-Power-Implement-Company-2.pdf; Minneapolis Directory Company, Davison’s Minneapolis City Directory ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1944), 1391, 1369, and 1487; Minneapolis Directory Company, Davison’s Minneapolis City Directory ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1942), 1823; “Northwestern Knitting Company/Munsingwear,” City of Minneapolis, last updated February 7, 2019, http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/hpc/landmarks/hpc_landmarks_market_st_275_northwestern_knitting_co; “Flour City Ornamental Iron Works Company records,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries, accessed September 5, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2318; “Minneapolis Is in a Jam!” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, January 21, 1945; Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116 – 117; Kane and Ominsky, Twin Cities, 195.

2.17

Figure 2.8 During World War II, the Flour City Ornamental Iron Works halted production of ornamental iron railings and transitioned into manufacturing 54 different defense products. This is an example of the type of industrial building reuse that was typical of the World War II era. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works, 1935. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Labor In contrast to the labor surplus of the 1930s, Minneapolis businesses found themselves faced with a labor shortage during the wartime years, as workers entered the military or took one of the many manufacturing jobs now available to them. Minneapolis manufacturing firms were also faced with a shortage of workers specifically trained to perform needed trades, such as welders and machinists. A shortage of waitresses and waiters put a strain on Minneapolis restaurants, forcing some to limit their hours of operation.70 In 1940 Minnesota’ state department of vocational education began sponsoring defense education programs throughout the state, in part to meet the shortage of trained industrial workers. By 1942, state-funded classes in Minneapolis were held at Miller Vocational High School (later known as Miller Vocational High School and Technical Institute) (1932; remodeled 1984, 1101 3rd Avenue South) and several public schools. The federal government also financed training at Minneapolis’ private trade school, the Dunwoody Industrial Institute (1917, 818 Dunwoody Boulevard).71

70 Catherine Quealy, “Labor Market in Twin Cities Area ‘Shot,’” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, May 2, 1943; “‘Food Rationing’ Is Here! Cafes All Short-Handed,” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, September 14, 1942; Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116. 71 Catherine Quealy, “Three-Way Co-ordination --- Industry, Trade Schools, State Projects,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune and

2.18

The demand for workers led to several changes in Minneapolis’ labor demographic. First, labor shortages opened job opportunities for women. In Minneapolis, the Miller Vocational High School opened its first defense-industries training program geared towards women in 1942. By July of 1942, 20% of the employees of defense contractors in the Twin Cities area were women; by November of 1942, that number had jumped to 28%. The Western Union Telegraph Company employed dozens of women at the Western Union Telegraph Company Headquarters (c. 1900, 307 2nd Avenue South), while the Twin Cities Rapid Transit Company hired women as conductors, motormen, bus operators, and in streetcar and bus shops.72

The war also sparked a gradual shift in employment discrimination for Minneapolis residents of color. Though most defense plants continued the practice of denying employment to African American Minneapolitans during the war, some African-American residents found work in defense plants such as the Twin Cities Ordnance Plant in New Brighton and D. W. Onan & Sons in Minneapolis (the firm’s first location, the D. W. Onan & Sons Plant at 43 Royalston Avenue has since been razed). Most firms that offered jobs to African-Americans continued to do so after the war ended. Nevertheless, African-Americans faced steep discrimination outside the workplace, including a segregated Twin Cities housing market and restrictions that prevented them from serving alongside white Minnesotans in Minnesota’s Home Defense Force.73

The operation of the Military Intelligence Service Language School at nearby Fort Snelling brought Japanese-Americans to Minnesota and the Twin Cities, where two local resettlement agencies partnered with the War Relocation Authority’s district office in Minneapolis (established in 1943) to relocate Japanese-Americans from West Coast detention centers to the Twin Cities and greater Minnesota. By 1943, over 400 such relocations had been made to the Twin Cities. Though Minnesota earned a reputation for providing a welcoming environment for Japanese-Americans, those of Japanese heritage were often denied membership in private organizations and experienced discrimination in housing, education, and employment.74 Daily Life

War effected the everyday lives of Twin Cities residents. Rationing of sugar, coffee, gasoline, tires, and other products, as well as price controls set by the Office of Price Administration, limited spending and impacted business operations. Residents grew victory gardens, purchased war bonds, took part in parades and recruiting drives, and engaged in civilian defense activities such as blackouts and purchasing defense stamps and bonds.75 Some Twin Cities residents contributed to the war effort

Star Journal, April 12, 1945. 72 Iric Nathanson, “Life on the Home Front: Minneapolis in 1942,” Hennepin History 61, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 15; Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116; Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 75 – 76; “Twin City Women Run Street Cars,” St. Cloud Daily Times, June 3, 1943. 73 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 82 – 87. 74 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 88 – 93; James Hiner Jr., “Narrative History: War Relocation Authority, Minneapolis District, 1942 – 1946,” Minnesota Historical Society. 75 Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 50 – 64; Kane and Ominsky, Twin Cities, 195; Nathanson, “Life on the Home Front,” 4 - 19.

2.19

by volunteering as air raid wardens, auxiliary police and firefighters, and scrap-drive coordinators.76 The war also prompted innovation in research. At the University of Minnesota, Professor Ancel Keys researched partial human starvation to develop the emergency combat K ration, and psychologist and behaviorist B. F. Skinner (then an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota) trained pigeons to fly bombing missions.77

PRESERVATION OVERVIEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION

In order for a property to be designated as historic, it must meet criteria for designation outlined in federal, state, and/or local preservation frameworks. In general, a property must be recognized as a property type that is eligible for preservation, and exhibit sufficient historic significance and historic integrity for designation. This section provides an overview of federal and local designation for historic properties, and outlines the relevant laws and regulations related to each level of designation. Federal Designation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, is a key piece of federal legislation that provides for the protection of cultural resources in the United States. The NHPA established the NRHP as “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worth of preservation.” The NHPA also established State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). To be considered NRHP-eligible, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria defined by the National Park Service: Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Association with the life of a significant person.

Criterion C: Embody a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.

Criterion D: Yield, or be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.

Certain types of properties are not typically eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criteria Considerations allow for properties such as cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religions institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years to be considered eligible if they are integral parts of larger historic districts that do meet the standard criteria, or if they fall under one of the Considerations below:

76 Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 182. 77 Kane and Ominsky, Twin Cities, 195; Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 167 – 173.

2.20

Criterion Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criterion Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criterion Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his production life.

Criterion Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criterion Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified matter as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived.

Criterion Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance.

Criterion Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years it is of exceptional importance.

If a property is determined to possess historic significance under one of these criteria, its integrity is evaluated using the seven aspects of integrity. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation identifies the seven aspects of integrity to be used in evaluating properties for eligibility. These aspects of integrity are: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location: The place where the property was constructed of the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting: The physical environment/character of the place where the property played its historical role.

Design: How well the property retains combinations of elements creating its form, plan, space, structure, and style.

Materials: How physical elements were combined at specific time periods and in particular patterns to create the property.

2.21

Workmanship: How well a property retains physical evidence of the crafts of a particular time period in history.

Feeling: The combination of the property’s physical features that express the historic sense of a particular time period.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

If a property is determined to possess historical significance under one or more criteria, retains sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance, and meets any applicable criteria considerations, the property is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

City of Minneapolis Local Designation

The City of Minneapolis defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of seven criteria, as outlined in Section 599.210 of the City of Minneapolis Municipal Code. The criteria that must be considered when determining the local historic significance of a property include: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. 3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES AND RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Property types associated with the themes of the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II within the context of Minneapolis in the Modern Era will be located within the city limits of Minneapolis, will have achieved significance between 1930 and 1975, and will demonstrate historic significance under one or more designation criteria in connection to these themes. This section describes the property types most likely to be associated with these themes, and the associated property types’ relationship to NRHP and local designation criteria.

2.22

Associated Property Types

Specific property types associated with the themes of the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 are listed below. Of the property categories acknowledged by the National Register (buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects), properties associated with these themes could fall into any of the five categories. Specific property types might include: 1) Properties associated with the City of Minneapolis’ Public Relief Department or private efforts to provide unemployment relief, including offices and other buildings. 2) Properties developed or improved as projects sponsored by New Deal agencies, including: a. Infrastructure (including roads and utilities), public buildings, schools, and parks expanded, repaired, improved, or constructed with funds provided by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration b. Glenwood Park, developed by the Civilian Conservation Corps c. Roads, parks, recreation facilities, and city buildings expanded, repaired, improved, or constructed with funds provided by the Civil Works Administration d. Infrastructure (including roads and bridges), parks, public buildings, and educational facilities financed with funds provided by the Public Works Administration in Minneapolis e. Public artwork commissioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Section of Painting and Sculpture or the WPA’s Federal Art Project78 f. Infrastructure (including roads, utilities, bridges, and walls), parking garages, recreational facilities, parks, libraries, municipal buildings, public transportation facilities, and medical buildings expanded, constructed, repaired, or improved with funds provided by the Works Progress Administration 3) Properties associated with notable strikes or other events related to the Minneapolis labor movement of the 1930s, including buildings and sites. 4) Properties associated with the recruitment and entertainment of military servicemen and women during World War II, including recruiting offices and entertainment facilities. 5) Properties associated with wartime industrial training and research in Minneapolis, including educational facilities and other buildings. 6) Properties associated with wartime gains in employment of females or persons of color during World War II in Minneapolis, including factories and other buildings. 7) Properties associated with the relocation of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast to Minneapolis during World War II, including relocation offices, places of residence, and other buildings.

78 Artwork eligible for the National Register would be considered an object. According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, “The term "object" is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. Small objects not designed for a specific location are normally not eligible. Such works include transportable sculpture, furniture, and other decorative arts that, unlike a fixed outdoor sculpture, do not possess association with a specific place.”

2.23

8) Properties associated with famous individuals who achieved significance in the various developments, events, and movements discussed in this chapter, including places of residence and other buildings. Associated Properties’ Relationship to National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, properties must have obtained significance for one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following section provides suggestions on how properties associated with the themes of the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 might be evaluated for significance under these four criteria. The term “subject property” is used to refer to properties associated with these themes. For additional information, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.79 Criterion A: Association with Significant Events

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, subject properties must be “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” These events include 1) “a specific event marking an important moment in American prehistory or history” and 2) “a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation.” Some historic events and trends identified in the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 with which subject properties might be associated include 1) the development of public and private local unemployment relief programs in Minneapolis; 2) work relief and economic stimulus programs in Minneapolis financed by New Deal agencies; 3) the labor movement in Minneapolis during the 1930s; 4) military recruiting and servicemen’s organizations during World War II; 5) employment gains for women and persons of color during World War II; 6) relocation of Japanese-Americans to Minneapolis during World War II; and 7) wartime industrial training and research in Minneapolis. These events and trends are linked to several Areas of Significance defined by the National Park 80 Service in the National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. These include: • Community Planning and Development: “the design or development of the physical structure of communities” • Conservation: “the preservation, maintenance, and management of natural or manmade resources” • Entertainment/Recreation: “the development and practice of leisure activities for refreshment, diversion, amusement, or sport”

79 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. 80 For a complete list of Areas of Significance, see the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A- Complete.pdf.

2.24

• Invention: “the art of originating by experiment or ingenuity an object, system, or concept of practical value” • Military: “the system of defending the territory and sovereignty of a people” • Politics/Government: “the enactment and administration of laws by which a nation, State, or other political jurisdiction is governed; activities related to political process” • Social History: “the history of efforts to promote the welfare of society; the history of society and the lifeways of its social groups” Subject properties may be considered for significance under Criterion A within these Areas of Significance. For example, an office building that served as the War Relocation Authority’s Minneapolis headquarters for the relocation of Japanese Americans could be considered for significance under Criterion A within the Area of Significance of Social History. The period of significance for a subject property evaluated under Criterion A should reflect the time period during which the property achieved significance. The level of significance will likely be local, though the connection between Minneapolis and relocation programs for Japanese-Americans should be explored in more detail for state or national significance. The labor movement in Minneapolis during the 1930s may have been significant beyond the local level. Though its headquarters building has been razed, Organized Unemployed, Inc. may also have attained significance at a state or national level. Criterion B: Association with Significant Persons

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B, properties must be “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” A significant individual is one “whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.” Within the themes of the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II in the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975, the individual might have achieved significance for association with the various trends discussed above, such as innovations pioneered during World War II or local efforts to provide unemployment relief during the Great Depression. To be significant for association with an individual, a subject property must have been associated with the individual during the time when he or she achieved significance, and the property must be the best illustration of that individual’s achievements. The individual must have directly influenced the conception and/or development of the property, or have lived in the property while making their contributions to their respective fields in Minneapolis. For example, a subject property significant under Criterion B could include the home of a prominent figure in the 1930s labor movement. The length of association with the individual in comparison with other associated properties should also be considered. Properties identified as the best representation of an individual’s contributions might be eligible under Criterion B in the Areas of Significance of Community Planning and Development, Conservation, Entertainment/Recreation, Invention, Military, Politics/Government, and/or Social History, though other categories might apply depending on the nature of the individual’s accomplishments. The period of significance should reflect the time period during which the individual achieved significance and was associated with the property. The area of significance would likely be local.

2.25

Properties significant for association with notable architects or contractors should be considered under Criterion C. Criterion C: Design/Construction

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible under Criterion C, properties must “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or…represent the work of a master, or…possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Properties that represent a type, period, or method of construction are those that illustrate, through distinctive features, a particular architectural style or construction method. They might illustrate “the pattern of features common to a particular class of resources, the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, the evolution of that class, or the transition between classes of resources.” These properties might be significant in the Areas of Significance of Engineering, “the practical application of scientific principles to design, construct, and operate equipment, machinery, and structures to serve human needs,” or Architecture, “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs.” For subject properties to be considered eligible under Criterion C in the context of this chapter, they must exemplify design trends, methods of construction, or a class of resources specific to the themes of the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II. For example, the distinctive features of retaining walls constructed by New Deal agencies might identify them as representative of a specific classes of resources and therefore eligible for designation under Criterion C under the themes discussed in this chapter. Properties that appear representative of modern architectural styles, including PWA Moderne, or the work of a master (i.e., a notable architect, engineer, or contractor), or that possess high artistic value, should be evaluated within the context of Chapter 9, “Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects.” The level of significance would likely be local. All properties designated under Criterion C should have a period of significance synonymous with their date of construction. Criterion D: Information Potential

To be considered eligible under Criterion D, properties must “have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion D, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the themes discussed in this chapter of the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not

2.26

evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion D. Criterion Considerations:

The temporal period of this context study ends in 1975, 45 years from today’s date. Thus, it is possible that some associated properties may have achieved exceptional significance within the past 50 years under Criterion G. Associated Properties’ Relationship to Local Designation Criteria: Criterion 1: Association with Significant Events

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion A (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Association with Significant Persons or Groups

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion B (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 2. Criterion 3: Association with City or Neighborhood Identity

The public buildings, landscapes, and infrastructure constructed or altered by New Deal programs may be tied to the identity of Minneapolis neighborhoods. Thus, it is possible that some subject properties will be eligible for local designation under Criterion 3 for association with neighborhood or city identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

Properties that meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 4. Some properties considered for significance under local Criterion 4 should be evaluated under the themes of Architecture and Architects, discussed in Chapter 9, rather than under the themes discussed in this chapter. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

Some properties that meet National Register Criterion C (see above) as representative of a class of resources might also be eligible under local Criterion 5. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 6. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

2.27

Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion 7, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the themes of discussed in this chapter of the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion 7 for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion 7. Integrity

To retain integrity, a subject property must retain most or all of the seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that retain integrity will have the ability to communicate their historic significance through their physical features. For more information on integrity, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Other Considerations Projects in Minneapolis funded by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the Civil Works Administration appear to have consisted largely of improvements or repairs to existing infrastructure and buildings, rather than new construction. Depending on the extent of the improvements or alterations, these resources may not be able to communicate their association with New Deal work relief programs and therefore might not be eligible for designation under this context.

2.28

BIBLIOGRAPHY

106 Group. Theodore Wirth Regional Park Cultural Landscape Study for the Blue Line Extension LRT Project. Prepared for HDR, September 2015. Anderson, Rolf T. “Federal Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1933 – 1941.” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. August 30, 1993. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/0f6651f7-4cb5-4324-b015-53c82c6a97f2.

Craig, Lois. The Federal Presence: Architecture Politics, and Symbols in United States Government Building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. Delton, Jennifer. “Labor, Politics, and African American Identity in Minneapolis, 1930 – 1950.” Minnesota History 57, no. 8 (Winter 2001-2002): 418 – 434. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/57/v57i08p418-434.pdf

“Division of Public Relief, Minneapolis, Minnesota.” c. 1934. Minneapolis Central Library, Minnesota.

Erickson, Herman. “WPA Strike and Trials of 1939.” Minnesota History 42, no. 6 (Summer 1971): 202 – 214. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/42/v42i06p202-214.pdf.

Final Report on the WPA Program, 1935 – 42. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946.

Gebhard, David and Tom Martinson. A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.

Hansen, Alvin H., Dreng Bjornaraa, and Tillman M. Sogge. The Decline of Unemployment in the 1930 – 1931 Depression in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth. University of Minnesota Employment Stabilization Research Institute, vol. 1, no. 5. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1932. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/101824760.

Hendrickson, Kenneth E., Jr. “The WPA Federal Art Projects in Minnesota, 1935-1942.” Minnesota History 53, no. 5 (Spring 1993): 170 – 183. http://www.mnhs.org/exhibits/wpa/v53i05p170- 183.pdf.

Hiner, James, Jr. “Narrative History: War Relocation Authority, Minneapolis District, 1942 – 1946.” Minnesota Historical Society.

James K. Hosmer Special Collections. “Minneapolis Moline Power Implement Company Collection.” October 25, 2016. https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs- and-Services/Finding-aids/M/2000-157-Minneapolis-Moline-Power-Implement-Company- 2.pdf.

2.29

Kane, Lucile M. and Alan Ominsky. Twin Cities: A Pictorial History of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1983.

Kenney, Dave. Minnesota Goes to War: The Home Front During World War II. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

---. Twin Cities Album: A Visual History. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

Kjorlaug, M. U. S. Historical Review, Division of Public Relief, Four Years of Depression, 1931-1932- 1933-1934. [Minneapolis, MN?]: c. 1935. James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library.

Koch, Raymond L. “Politics and Relief in Minnesota during the 1930s.” Minnesota History 41, no. 4 (Winter 1968): 153 – 170. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/41/v41i04p153-170.pdf.

--- “The Development of Public Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1929 – 1941.” Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1967.

Marseca, Joseph. WPA Buildings: Architecture and Art of the New Deal. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 2016.

McElvaine, Robert S. The Great Depression: America, 1929 – 1941. Toronto, Canada: Fitzhenry & Whitside, Ltd., 1984.

Millet, Larry. AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007.

Millet, Larry. Lost Twin Cities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1992.

Minneapolis Board of Education with the Work Projects Administration. W. P. A. Accomplishments in Minnesota. Bulletin No. 62, Social Studies Research Materials. N.p.: 1942. Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection. Hennepin County Library.

Minneapolis Directory Company. Davison’s Minneapolis City Directory. ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1942 and 1944.

Nathanson, Iric. “Life on the Home Front: Minneapolis in 1942.” Hennepin History 61, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 4 – 19.

---. Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century: The Growth of an American City. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2010.

Neal, Robert G. “Welfare in Hennepin County: Depression, War, and Civil Rights (1934 – 1965).” Hennepin History 60, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 4 – 19.

Osman, Stephen E. “Fort Snelling’s Last War.” Roots: Minnesota During World War II 17, no. 2 (Winter 1989): 16 – 21.

2.30

O’Sullivan, Thomas. “A Job and a Movement: The WPA Federal Art Project in Minnesota.” Minnesota History 53, No. 5 (Spring 1993): 184 – 195. http://www.mnhs.org/exhibits/wpa/v53i05p184-195.pdf.

Quam, Lois and Peter J. Rachleff. “Keeping Minneapolis an Open-Shop Town: The Citizens’ Alliance in the 1930s.” Minnesota History 50, no. 3 (Fall 1986): 105 – 117.

Risjord, Norman K. A Popular History of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

Robinson, Judith, Laura Bobeczko, Paul Lusignan, and Jeffrey Shrimpton. “Public Housing in the United States, 1933 – 1949.” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. December 1, 2004. http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/publications/pubhouseusa.pdf.

Short, C. W. and R. Stanley Brown. Public Buildings: A Survey of Architecture of Projects Constructed by Federal and Other Governmental Bodies Between the Years 1933 and 1939 with the Assistance of the Public Works Administration. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1939.

nd Smiley, Gene. “Great Depression.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2 ed., edited by David R. Henderson. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2007. Accessed August 15, 2019. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html.

Sorensen, Kara. “Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified November 7, 2018. http://www.mnopedia.org/place/twin-cities-army- ammunition-plant.

Stipanovich, Joseph. City of Lakes: An Illustrated History of Minneapolis. Woodland Hills, CA: Windsor Publications, 1982.

Tselos, George. “Self-help and Sauerkraut: The Organized Unemployed, Inc., of Minneapolis.” Minnesota History 45, no. 8 (Winter 1977): 306 – 320. http://collections.mnhs.org/mnhistorymagazine/articles/45/v45i08p306-320.pdf.

---. “The Minneapolis Labor Movement in the 1930s.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1970.

Tweton, Jerome D. Depression: Minnesota in the Thirties. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, 1981.

Weber, Laura E. “‘Gentiles Preferred:’ Minneapolis Jews and Employment, 1920 – 1950.” Minnesota History 52, no. 5 (Spring 1991): 166 – 182. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/52/v52i05p166-182.pdf.

2.31

CHAPTER THREE

Nicollet Mall, c. 1968. Minnesota Historical Society.

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Locations of outlying shopping districts in Minneapolis in 1956 3.15

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Aerial view of industrial plants along the Great Northern Railway and the 3.2 Northern Pacific Railway, 1938. Figure 3.2: Commercial buildings at the intersection of Lake Street and 28th Avenue South, 3.4 c. 1930. Figure 3.3: Parking lot of Sears store at the intersection of Lake Street and Elliot Avenue, 3.4 1936. Figure 3.4: Aerial view of downtown business district, 1936. 3.5 Figure 3.5: Postcard of Nicollet Avenue, 1958. 3.11 Figure 3.6: Lake Street near Clinton Avenue, c. 1960. 3.14 Figure 3.7: Eastgate Shopping Center, May 28, 1956. 3.16 Figure 3.8: Northwestern National Life Insurance building, August 6, 1975. 3.19 Figure 3.9: Parking ramp at 14 5th Street, August 6, 1975. 3.21 Figure 3.10: Northstar Center, 1967. 3.22 Figure 3.11: Nicollet Mall, c. 1968. 3.23 Figure 3.12: Aerial photograph, 1964. 3.24 Figure 3.13 Map showing industrial structures in Minneapolis by era of construction, pre- 3.26 1960 to 1980. Figure 3.14: American Linen Supply Company, 1972 3.27

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

The history of Minneapolis businesses and industries in the Modern Era is a complex narrative as Minneapolis businesses emerging from the Great Depression and World War II faced the challenges of increasing suburbanization and decentralization during the postwar era. Efforts to retain the historic prominence of downtown Minneapolis as a retail and office center led to extensive redevelopment of the central city, while efforts to retain industry within the city’s boundaries led to the creation of public and private industrial parks. The legacy of these Modern Era trends is reflected in a variety of properties, from the downtown skyscrapers of the early 1970s to patterns of retail development still visible along the city’s primary thoroughfares. 1930 – 1945: DEPRESSION AND WAR Minneapolis’s Economy in 1930:

By the start of the Great Depression, Minneapolis had begun a slow transition from an industrial economy to a commercial and service-based economy, and the industries that had defined much of Minneapolis’s early history had lost their economic prominence. The closing of the last Minneapolis sawmill in 1916 had brought an end to the lumber industry, and the city’s flour milling industry was declining in the face of competition from Buffalo, New York and other urban centers in the eastern United States. In place of these two industries, a variety of manufacturing interests had arisen, some that reflected the city’s historic roots in lumbering and milling. According to a c. 1929 publication produced by the Minneapolis Industrial Committee, flour and grain-mill products remained the City’s primary industries, but these were followed by printed and published materials; linseed oil, cake, and meal; foundry and machine shop products; bags; bakery products; car construction and repair; animal feed; clothing; copper, tin and sheet-iron work; furniture; confectionary products; butter; electrical machinery; planing-mill products; and structural and ornamental iron and steel work. Though Minneapolis’s manufacturing industries had suffered during the 1920s, the city was clearly the nucleus of manufacturing for the Twin Cities, the State of Minnesota, and the Upper Midwest. Out of the $567,301,570 worth of products produced by manufacturers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area in 1929, Minneapolis’s 1,219 manufacturing establishments generated $361,072,199.1 By 1929, Minneapolis’s industrial firms were either located in the warehouse districts in the central city or along railroad lines in outlying areas of the city. A c. 1929 map shows industrial locations along the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul railroad in south Minneapolis, the Great Northern Railroad in southwest and northeast Minneapolis, the Soo Line in north Minneapolis, and the Great Northern Pacific in northeast Minneapolis, as well as concentrations along the Mississippi River. Several large industrial tracts were located in northeast Minneapolis, and at the eastern edge of

1 Joseph Stipanovich, City of Lakes: An Illustrated History of Minneapolis (Woodland Hills, CA: Windsor Publications, 1982), 101 – 104; Minneapolis Industrial Committee, Facts on Minneapolis: Industrial Center of the Northwest ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Industrial Committee, c. 1929), 34 - 35; Charles B. Kuhlman, “The Influence of the Minneapolis Flour Mills Upon the Economic Development of Minnesota and the Northwest,” Minnesota History 6, no. 2 (June 1925): 143 – 154; Elizabeth Faue, Community of Suffering and Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915 – 1945 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 38 – 42, 55, 58; David B. Danbom, “Flour Power: The Significance of Flour Milling at the Falls,” Minnesota History 58, no. 5 (Spring/Summer 2003): 283.

3.1

Minneapolis (known today as the Midway area). At the city’s core, warehousing was located to the northwest of the central business district, while light industrial areas were located to the southeast.2

Figure 3.1 During the 1930s, some industrial firms were located along railroad lines in outlying areas of Minneapolis, such as the intersection of the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Railways in Northeast Minneapolis. Aerial view of industrial plants along the Great Northern Railway and the Northern Pacific Railway, 1938. John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota. A c. 1929 report prepared by the Minneapolis Industrial Committee noted that the city’s favorable position at the head of the Mississippi made it a logical distributing point for states in the Midwest and Northwest (Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Montana, the northern half of Wisconsin, northern peninsula of Michigan, parts of Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Canada). Transportation provided by the ten truck railroads that serviced the city, as well as trucking and bus lines, allowed wholesalers and jobbers to distribute their products across the country and within Minneapolis itself. By the early 1930s, the rise of the automobile had created a booming trucking industry in the city, with 29 truck companies transporting produce to city markets, manufactured goods to rural areas, and coal to residences and businesses around Minneapolis. According to the c. 1929 report, Minneapolis was “well equipped with terminal warehouses to handle distribution and with wholesale firms to represent the manufacturers,” and “20 warehouse and

2 John R. Borchert, David Lanegran, David Gebhard, and Judith A. Martin, Legacy of Minneapolis: Preservation Amidst Change (Bloomington, MN: Voyageur Press, 1983), 41 – 42; Minneapolis Industrial Committee, Facts on Minneapolis, 36.

3.2

storage companies conveniently located in the business districts of Minneapolis, situated on the various railroad lines, give to the city every facility for handling, consolidating, storing and shipping of every known commodity to its trade territory.”3 Financial institutions located in the city, including the Federal Reserve Bank for the Ninth Federal Reserve District, provided financing for industrial development.4 During the 1920s, American cities experienced a decentralization of industry as manufacturers spilled over city borders into neighboring suburban areas.5 During this decade, the shift from railroad to truck transportation led some industrial firms in Minneapolis to choose suburban locations for new warehouses rather than maintaining old structures near the city’s railroads. By 1932, Minneapolis’s downtown warehouse district, while still intact, had begun to experience decline as the result of changes in transportation, wholesaling, and general economic conditions.6 A publication from that year noted that during the past ten years…there has been…a gradual but steady decrease in the number of large wholesale firms in the grocery, dry-goods, drug and hardware fields. The main causes of these changes have been the growing importance of chain stores, the increasing sales of mail-order houses, the tendency of large manufacturers to establish their own branches, the increasing cost of transportation, and the development of the motor truck with the attendant decentralization of wholesaling.7 If railroad lines and the emerging network of truck transportation had shaped the locations of Minneapolis industry by 1930, streetcar lines and the growing trend towards automobile transportation largely determined the locations of Minneapolis’s outlying retail districts. The city’s streetcar system, developed by the Twin City Rapid Transit Company during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, stimulated residential and commercial development throughout the city.8 Major commercial stops with small department stores, doctor and dentist offices, and other goods and services developed at the intersections of streetcar lines, while transit stops featured grocery stores, meat markets, bakeries, and other everyday goods and services, and street corners and mid-block locations featured mom-and-pop stores. Beginning around 1920, automobile use created new shopping districts along streetcar and bus lines that catered to the parking requirements for automobile traffic. The automobile also spurred the creation of new shopping districts beyond streetcar lines at the intersections of major streets. For example, the Sears, Roebuck and Company

3 Minneapolis Industrial Committee, Facts on Minneapolis, 6, 25. 4 Minneapolis Industrial Committee, Facts on Minneapolis, 4 – 6, 22, 34 – 37; Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 111 – 115. 5 Rodney A. Erickson, “The Evolution of the Suburban Space Economy,” Urban Geography 4, no. 2 (April 1983): 96, 101. 6 Jacob Silver, “A Geographic Study of the Commercial Concentrations Located in Suburban Minneapolis,” (master’s thesis, [University of Minnesota?], 1953), 2 – 5; Rolf T. Anderson, “Minneapolis Warehouse District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form,” January 1987, Section 8 page 12, https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/edb755f5-b6fe-4455-b89a- 4171688efa70. 7 Roland S. Vaile and Alvin L. Nordstrom, Public Merchandise Warehousing in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1932), 18, as quoted in Rolf T. Anderson, “Minneapolis Warehouse District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form,” January 1987, Section 8 page 12, https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/edb755f5-b6fe-4455-b89a- 4171688efa70. 8 John W. Diers and Aaron Isaacs, Twin Cities by Trolley: The Streetcar Era in Minneapolis and St. Paul (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), 5. For a list of all streetcar lines developed by the Twin City Rapid Transit Company, see Tamara Ludt, Streetcar Commercial Building Context and Intensive Thematic Survey (prepared for the City of Minneapolis, August 2019), 34.

3.3

Mail-Order Warehouse and Retail Store (1927, 2843 Elliot Avenue South) on Lake Street and Elliot Avenue that opened in the late 1920s allowed for both streetcar access and parking for shoppers’ automobiles.9

Figure 3.2 In 1930, the locations of shopping districts outside of Minneapolis’s central business district had largely been determined by the locations of streetcar lines, such as the streetcar line along Lake Street in South Minneapolis. The image above shows the typical scale, height, density, and style of these commercial buildings. Commercial buildings at the intersection of Lake Street and 28th Avenue South, c. 1930. Minnesota Historical Society.

Figure 3.3 Around 1920, shopping districts oriented to both automobile and streetcar traffic began to appear in Minneapolis, such as the Sears store at the intersection of Lake Street and Elliot Avenue in South Minneapolis. Parking lot of Sears store at the intersection of Lake Street and Elliot Avenue, 1936. Minnesota Historical Society.

9 Ronald Abler, John S. Adams, and John R. Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976), 33; John S. Adams and Barbara J. VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul: People, Place and Public Life (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), 84 – 85, 109.

3.4

Though commercial establishments along streetcar lines and streets offered convenient access for neighborhood residents, Minneapolis’s most prominent retail district in 1930 was located downtown. Like other American cities, Minneapolis’s dominant center of retail was historically concentrated in the central business district.10 The shift in the city’s economy from manufacturing to service organizations and financial institutions was demonstrated by commercial office buildings constructed during the late 1920s and early 1930s: the Foshay Tower (1929, 821 Marquette Avenue), the Rand Tower (1929, 527 Marquette Avenue), and the Northwestern Bell Telephone Building (1932, 224 Fifth Street South).11 By 1935, Minneapolis’s main business district contained the major department stores; expensive small shops; office buildings of banks, railroads insurance companies, and commodity exchanges; government buildings; larger hotels; and theaters and movie houses along Hennepin Avenue. The center of the downtown retail district (formerly concentrated in Bridge Square at the intersection of Hennepin and Nicollet Avenues) was located at the intersection of Nicollet and Seventh, while the center of the office and banking district was located to the south of the retail district.12

Figure 3.4 In 1930, Minneapolis’s dominant retail district was located downtown. Aerial view of downtown business district, 1936. Minnesota Historical Society.

10 Robert M. Fogelson, Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, 1880 – 1950 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 12 – 14, 20, 194 – 200; Minneapolis Industrial Committee, Facts on Minneapolis, 9. 11 Borchert, et al., Legacy of Minneapolis, 39 – 41, 114; Larry Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 31- 36. 12 Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 85; Borchert et al., Legacy of Minneapolis, 41 – 43; Judith A. Martin and Antony Goddard, Past Choices/Present Landscapes: The Impact of Urban Renewal on the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1989), 52. The report can be accessed online, at CURA’s website: http://www.cura.umn.edu/publications/catalog/c1021.

3.5

As in outlying commercial districts, the automobile brought changes to Minneapolis’s downtown retail district. During the 1920s and 30s, downtown businesses responded to increased automobile use by adding parking lots and garages. In an effort to provide parking for female shoppers driving into downtown, higher-end stores moved southwest to locations on upper Nicollet Avenue. Between 1907 and 1930, the Harmon Place area (just southwest of the central business district) developed as the center of automotive sales and service for Minneapolis, with automobile show rooms, service stations, and repair and parts shops.13 The Great Depression As the country plummeted into the Great Depression, the City of Minneapolis’s economy was already in a weakened state, due to the rise of flour milling in urban centers to the east and south and the crippling of Minnesota agriculture by overproduction, land deflation, and a decrease in foreign demand during the 1920s. This weakened position, as well as the dependence on consumer industries over heavy manufacturing, initially softened the blow of the Depression during the early 1930s.14 However, the economic effects of the Depression grew steadily worse from 1929 through 1932.15 An August 1933 survey sponsored by the University of Minnesota noted that 61% of Minneapolis manufacturers surveyed reported losses in 1931 and 86% in 1932. Wood, machinery, and metal manufacturers were particularly hard hit. Minneapolis residents fortunate enough to retain industrial jobs saw their wages and hours drop. As in other communities across the United States, the state’s construction industry basically collapsed, and building permit values dropped from $21 million in 1929 to less than $6 million in 1932.16 Other data indicates that Minneapolis manufacturing, wholesaling, and retail businesses experienced declines during the Great Depression. In 1929, the city’s manufacturing plants produced approximately $361 million in products; by 1933, this number had dropped to approximately $170 million. Even in 1937, after the city’s economy had begun to recover, only $271 million of products were produced. Similar declines were experienced in wholesaling ($846 million in sales in 1929; and $516 million in 1933; $750 million in 1937) and retail ($303 million in sales in 1929; $169 million in 1933; and $265 million in 1937). Between 1929 and 1933, the number of manufacturing and wholesaling businesses dropped noticeably, from 1,219 manufacturing plants to 923 manufacturing plants and from 1,316 wholesale establishments to 991 wholesale establishments, respectively.17

13 “Harmon Place Historic District,” City of Minneapolis, last updated February 7, 2019, http://www.minneapolismn.gov/hpc/landmarks/hpc_landmarks_harmon_place; National Register of Historic Places, Thompson Flats, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #100003916, Section 8, page 13, https://mn.gov/admin/assets/SRB_Thompson%20Flats_tcm36-371886.pdf; Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 109. 14 Laura E. Weber, “‘Gentiles Preferred:’ Minneapolis Jews and Employment, 1920 – 1950,” Minnesota History 52, no. 5 (Spring 1991): 170, http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/52/v52i05p166-182.pdf; Charles Rumford Walker, American City: A Rank and File History of Minneapolis, repr. (1937; repr., Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2005), 23. 15 Raymond L. Koch, “The Development of Public Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1929 – 1941” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 1967), 1 – 61. 16 George Tselos, “The Minneapolis Labor Movement in the 1930s,” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1970), 63 – 69; Ronald S. Vaile, ed., Impact of the Depression on Business Activity and Real Income in Minnesota, University of Minnesota Studies in Economics and Business No. 8. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1933), 7- 15. 17 Faue, Community of Suffering and Struggle, 201. The number of retail establishments actually increased from 6,028 in 1929 to 6,122 in 1933.

3.6

In 1933, the number of employed persons in Minneapolis began a slow but steady increase. Unlike elsewhere in the country, later recessions in 1937 and 1940 did not drastically cut employment in Minneapolis.18 Historian Joseph Stipanovich notes that “Minneapolis weathered [the Great Depression] remarkably well…when viewed in light of the experience of other industrial cities. The major financial institutions in the city survived the trauma, as did the major industrial enterprises.”19 While some speculative Minneapolis business operations did not survive the decade’s economic turmoil, other local, more conservatively managed businesses were able to weather the Depression. These included General Mills, which increased its net income over the course of the 1930s and the downtown Dayton’s Department Store (1902, later additions, 700 Nicollet Mall), which used new sales techniques to remain profitable each year.20 World War II

The advent of World War II in 1939 and the United States’ entrance into the war in December of 1941 were key factors in bringing the country out of the Great Depression. In Minneapolis and the surrounding metropolitan area, wartime demand for equipment and supplies stimulated local industries.21 By the second half of 1941, the federal government was pouring over a half a billion dollars into defense contracts with Minnesota companies, and employment in Minnesota manufacturing had increased by 28%.22

In his book Land of the Giants: A History of Minnesota Business, Don Larson notes that “practically every major corporation [in Minnesota] was involved in some facet of war production.”23 Much of the government contract money went to large firms located in Minneapolis and the surrounding metropolitan region, including the Federal Cartridge Corporation (which operated the government-owned Twin Cities Ordnance Plant in New Brighton and Arden Hills, Minnesota), the Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Company at the Minneapolis-Moline Power Company Plant (1902; razed 1973, East Lake Street and Minnehaha Avenue, and the Northern Pump Company (which moved from its Minneapolis plant on Central Avenue to a location in Fridley after receiving a large defense contract). The products produced by Minneapolis firms were varied. General Mills developed food products for military consumption from the General Mills Research Laboratories (construction date unknown, 2008 – 2010 East Hennepin Avenue), the General Mills Mechanical Development Department (construction date unknown, 1620 Central Avenue Northeast), and the General Mills Engineering Research Department (construction date unknown, 1841 Pierce Street Northeast), while North Star Woolen Mills and Munsingwear produced uniforms, blankets, and clothing for the armed forces from the North Star Woolen Mills (1864, renovated late 1990s, 117 Portland Avenue) and Munsingwear Plant (1904 – 1915, renovated 1985, 718 Glenwood Avenue).

18 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 115. 19 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 115. 20 Jerome Tweton, Depression: Minnesota in the Thirties (Fargo, ND: North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, 1981), 41. 21 Weber, “Gentiles Preferred,” 178 – 179; Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116. 22 Dave Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War: The Home Front During World War II (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 5 – 6. 23 Don Larson, Land of the Giants: A History of Minnesota Business (Minneapolis, MN: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 1979), 145.

3.7

Smaller companies took up smaller individual contracts for goods ranging from paper clips to fabricated metal structures, or entered into subcontracts with larger companies; for example, the Aaron Carlson Company Plant (c. 1905, later additions, 1505 Central Avenue Northeast) built pontoon bridge components.24 Expanded construction resulted in the construction of dozens of large new defense plants in the state.25 Some Minneapolis firms expanded from their pre-war areas of expertise into new areas of production. General Mills produced gun sights and torpedoes and the Flour City Ornamental Iron Company abandoned ornamental railings to produce 54 different defense items at its Flour City Ornamental Iron Company Plant (1901, later additions, 2637 27th Avenue South). At the Honeywell Heat Regulator Company Plant and Headquarters (1927, later additions, 2701 Wells Fargo Way), Minneapolis-Honeywell expanded into the development of bombs and airplane autopilot systems. Other notable wartime inventions included a multi-purpose military vehicle produced by the Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Company, the first such vehicle to be coined a “JEEP,” a system of truck refrigeration invented by Fred Jones and produced at the United States Thermo Control Company Plant at (construction date unknown, razed, 44 12th Street South), and the CG-4 and CG-13A gliders produced by the Northwest Aeronautical Corporation in four Twin Cities plants, including hangars at the Wold-Chamberlain Field (1920, later alterations and additions, Highway 5 and Glumack Drive).26 1945 – c. 1960: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY IN THE POSTWAR ERA

Following World War II, decentralization and suburbanization created a large-scale shift in the locations of businesses and industries in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Urban geographers Ronald Abler, John Adams, and John Borchert note that “at the outset of the postwar boom, virtually all jobs in the metropolitan area were located within the central cities.”27 By 1950, 20% of jobs in the metropolitan area were located in suburban areas; by 1970, over 40% of jobs were located in the suburbs.28 This change, as well as the continued evolution of the city’s economy, shaped the development of Minneapolis business and industry during much of the Modern Era.

24 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116; Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 108 – 110; Kara Sorensen, “Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified November 7, 2018, http://www.mnopedia.org/place/twin-cities- army-ammunition-plant; James K. Hosmer Special Collections, “Minneapolis Moline Power Implement Company Collection,” October 25, 2016, https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and-Services/Finding-aids/M/2000-157- Minneapolis-Moline-Power-Implement-Company-2.pdf; Minneapolis Directory Company, Davison’s Minneapolis City Directory ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1944), 1391, 1369, and 1487; Minneapolis Directory Company, Davison’s Minneapolis City Directory ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1942), 1823; “Northwestern Knitting Company/Munsingwear,” City of Minneapolis, last updated February 7, 2019, http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/hpc/landmarks/hpc_landmarks_market_st_275_northwestern_knitting_co; PVN, Site Development History (prepared for Hempel, December 2018), 3; “Flour City Ornamental Iron Works Company records,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries, accessed September 5, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2318; “Minneapolis Is in a Jam!” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, January 21, 1945; Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 116 – 117; Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 85; Lucile M. Kane and Alan Ominsky, Twin Cities: A Pictorial History of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1983), 195. 25 Larson, Land of the Giants, 146. 26 Kane and Ominsky, Twin Cities, 195; “Report of Progress: Defense Industry in the Northwest,” Minneapolis Star, November 26, 1941; Kenney, Minnesota Goes to War, 137 – 159; “Blast Causes Loss,” Minneapolis Tribune, April 3, 1945; John Nyberg, “City Inventor Finds Way for GIs to Get Cold Drink,” Minneapolis Star Journal, January 1, 1945; Larson, Land of the Giants, 146. 27 Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 45. 28 Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 59.

3.8

Downtown Commerce

By the late 1930s and early 1940s, the decentralization of businesses to outlying areas had become a significant and visible threat to downtown’s prominence as the central business district in American cities.29 By the end of World War II, the prominence of downtown Minneapolis as the area’s retail and office center was challenged by several developments. Economic depression and war meant that few buildings had been constructed in downtown Minneapolis in the previous fifteen years, and by the late 1940s increasing numbers of automobiles were creating extensive traffic jams on downtown streets.30 Supporters of downtown believed that a revitalization of downtown’s physical infrastructure was needed to accommodate the city’s changing economy, which continued to shift from its historic base in agricultural processing to a new foundation on financial institutions and service organizations. Historians Judith A. Martin and Antony Goddard note that The transition away from manufacturing (in Minneapolis) and wholesaling (in St. Paul), and toward creating a “corporate city” image for both, greatly accelerated during the Depression and World War II. The postwar downtowns were cramped and looked worn. With a few exceptions (the Minneapolis Post Office and St. Paul’s City Hall), almost nothing new had been built in either downtown since the late 1920s. Clearly, if the Twin Cities were going to appear modern and progressive, major changes needed to occur. A new landscape for both downtowns – a completely new physical landscape – was in order.31 Downtown Minneapolis was challenged not only by its aging infrastructure but also by the suburbanization that occurred in the postwar era.32 According to the National Register of Historic Places nomination for Dayton’s Department Store, During the late 1940s and 1950s, suburbanization and residential construction exploded, with millions moving to new homes in the suburbs. This boom was fueled by a housing shortage, a problem compounded by the return of overseas soldiers. A strong postwar economy that created greater purchasing power for members of the middle class, the increased mobility fostered by the automobile, and favorable federal government policies also contributed to the rise in suburban home ownership. In the Twin Cities, suburbanites accounted for only twelve percent of all metropolitan residents in 1940; by 1956, one out of every three metropolitan residents lived in the suburbs. While the population of St. Paul and Minneapolis proper increased by about one percent annually between 1940 and 1956, the suburbs experienced average growth rates of ten percent from 1940 to 1950, twelve percent between 1950 and 1954, and fifteen percent from 1954 to 1956.33 These changes in residential development and transportation continued the decentralization of retail that had begun in American cities in the 1920s, as stores developed in outlying areas to the

29 Fogelson, Downtown, 194 - 227. 30 Martin and Goddard, Past Choices/Present Landscapes, 58 - 59; Larry Millett, Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 21; Borchert et al, Legacy of Minneapolis, 39 – 41; 31 Martin and Goddard, Past Choices/Present Landscapes, 59. 32 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 25. 33 National Register of Historic Places, Dayton’s Department Store, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #100004147, Section 8, page 29, https://mn.gov/admin/assets/Daytons%20Department%20Store_tcm36-380634.pdf.

3.9

serve the burgeoning suburban population.34 Even so, suburbanites faced inadequate retail options until at least the mid-1950s. Historian Lizabeth Cohen notes that “faced with slim retail offerings nearby, many new suburbanites of the 1940s and 1950s continued to depend on the big city for major purchases, making do with the small, locally owned commercial outlets in neighboring towns for minor needs.”35 A lack of adequate suburban retail during the initial postwar era seems to have characterized most Twin Cities’ suburbs, as the initial rapid pace of residential construction led to an imbalance in the ratio of retailing and residents.36 According to Richfield historian Frederick Johnson, the “downtown districts of both Minneapolis and St. Paul still dominated the retail shopping scene in 1950,” as did many other downtowns nationwide.37 By the mid- to late 1950s, however, the ascendancy of the large, regional shopping center, as well as the discount store, had significantly altered the landscape of suburban consumption. Designed to compete with downtown, regional shopping centers featured department store branches and large parking lots for auto-oriented suburbanites, and were instrumental in shifting the role of suburban retail from a consequence to a catalyst of suburban development.38 During the 1950s and early 1960s, new discount chain stores were established, and existing companies planted new branches in outlying areas.39 Sociologist Sharon Zukin notes that together, shopping malls and the discount stores “organized a new landscape of consumption.”40 The building commonly understood as America’s first fully-enclosed regional shopping center, Southdale, opened in the Minneapolis suburb of Edina in 1956.41 According to urban geographer John S. Adams, “the full-flowering of the postwar auto-oriented shopping center occurred when Southdale mall opened in 1956, deep in the center of a superblock away from highway traffic and congested intersections and providing unlimited free parking.”42 Commissioned by the Dayton family to house a branch location of the Dayton’s Department Store, Southdale had two levels and seventy-two stores.43 At the beginning of the postwar era, the development of office space in outlying areas also threatened downtown Minneapolis. Unlike industrial and retail enterprises that had begun to

34 Peter O. Muller (Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1981), 121 – 123. 35 Lizabeth Cohen, A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2003), 258. 36 Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis–St. Paul, 103. 37 Frederick L. Johnson, Suburban Dawn: The Emergence of Richfield, Edina and Bloomington (Richfield, MN: Richfield Historical Society, 2009), 168; Cohen, A Consumer’s Republic, 257 – 258. 38 Richard W. Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile, and Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920-1950 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 309 – 310; Kenneth Jackson, “All the World's a Mall: Reflections on the Social and Economic Consequences of the American Shopping Center,” American Historical Review 101, no. 4 (October 1996): 1115-1116, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2169636; Thomas W. Hanchett, "U.S. Tax Policy and the Shopping-Center Boom of the 1950s and 1960s," American Historical Review 101, no. 4 (1996): 1091, 1093 – 1095, 1097 – 1098, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2169635; Longstreth, City Center to Regional Mall, xiii – xiv; Muller, Contemporary Suburban America, 121 – 23; Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 33, 55. 39 Sharon Zukin, Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed American Culture (New York: Routledge, 2005), 77 – 81. 40 Zukin, Point of Purchase, 80 – 81; Thomas Baird, Earl C. Meyer, and Winifred L. Green, “Discount Stores,” in Encyclopedia of Business and Finance, 2nd ed., Thomson Gale, 2007, accessed February 8, 2018, http://www.encyclopedia.com/finance/finance-and-accounting-magazines/discount-stores 41 Hanchett, “U.S. Tax Policy,” 1097; “Southdale Center: The First Indoor Shopping Mall: Overview,” Minnesota Historical Society, accessed September 24, 2019, https://libguides.mnhs.org/southdale. 42 Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis–St. Paul, 110. 43 “Southdale Center: The First Indoor Shopping Mall: Overview,” Minnesota Historical Society, accessed September 24, 2019, https://libguides.mnhs.org/southdale.

3.10

decentralize before World War II, corporate offices as well as banks, commodity exchanges, insurance companies, law and accounting firms, and advertising agencies had remained in the central business districts of most American cities through 1945.44 This was true in the Twin Cities, where most corporations maintained headquarters downtown or at their urban factories in 1945.45 During the postwar years, however, the status quo was challenged by the development of suburban corporate campuses. In the immediate postwar era, downtown’s prominence as the metro office center appeared threatened; between 1947 and 1958, the amount of office space in the downtown increased at an average rate of one percent per year, while office space in outlying areas increased at an average of 100 percent annually. In the late 1950s, General Mills Headquarters was constructed in the western suburb of Golden Valley, allowing the company to relocate from its Minneapolis offices to the suburbs by 1958. Other relocations by the early 1960s included Gamble-Red Owl Stores and Honeywell, which moved to some of their operations to western suburbs as well. In Minneapolis, the Prudential Building (1955, 3701 Wayzata Boulevard) was constructed at the western outskirts of the city for Prudential Insurance.46

Figure 3.5 During the 1940s and 50s, some downtown businesses modernized their façades by replacing storefronts or adding a second layer of cladding material. The renovated façade of Donaldson’s Department Store on Nicollet Avenue is visible at the left of the postcard. Postcard of Nicollet Avenue, 1958. Lakesnwoods Postcard and Postcard Image Collection, Lakesnwoods.com.

44 Fogelson, Downtown, 387. 45 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 61; General Mills, Inc., “Diversification Is Key Word in the History of General Mills,” Northwestern Miller, July 1973, 53. 46 Borchert et. al, Legacy of Minneapolis, 47; Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 190; “Minnesota Modern Registry,” docomomo-us-mn.org, accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html.

3.11

In light of these trends, downtown businessmen and city planners worked to retain downtown’s role as a major retail and office center during the Modern Era. During the 1940s and 50s, some downtown businesses modernized their façades. Architectural historian Larry Millett notes that “the remodeling of older commercial and retail property had traditionally been limited to changes at the ground floor, but the urge to appear fresh and new was so strong in the 1940s and 1950s that buildings were often covered with entirely new façades.”47 This trend was reflected in the façade modernizations of Donaldson’s Department Store (1884; razed in 1989, Sixth Street and Nicollet Avenue) in 1949 and the J. C. Penney Department Store (also known as the Syndicate Block) (1883; razed in 1982, Nicollet Avenue between Fifth and Sixth Streets) in 1958.48 Another strategy employed to retain downtown shoppers and employees was the construction of adequate parking facilities. A 1945 study by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission on downtown parking noted that the central business district (broadly defined as the area between 1st Street on the north, 8th Avenue South on the east, 13th Street on the south, and 3rd Avenue North on the west) contained parking garages and indoor parking with a total capacity for approximately 5,000 cars and parking lots with a total capacity of approximately 11,200 spaces, with another approximately 5,400 spaces available at the curb. Predicting an increase in the use of automobiles to reach the downtown business district, the replacement of existing surface lots with new construction, and inadequate distribution of existing parking, the report recommended the construction of permanent parking facilities.49 “In order to provide enough terminal facilities in the central business district,” the report noted, “it becomes apparent that in some areas a multiple-type parking structure must be provided.”50 The “multiple-type” structure that emerged as the solution was the modern parking ramp.51 During the 1950s, ramp construction in downtown Minneapolis was primarily driven by private investment. In 1950, downtown businessmen formed Downtown Auto Park, Inc., to combat decentralization through the construction of parking ramps. A 1950 article in the Minneapolis Tribune noted that “the ‘Minneapolis plan’ of building the [parking] garages with private money and without any financial aid from government is attracting nationwide attention. This is the first large city in the country where such a project has been undertaken by businessmen.”52 In 1951, Downtown Auto Park constructed its first two ramps, a parking ramp at 409 Marquette Avenue (1951) and a parking ramp at 910 Lasalle Avenue (1951). The latter was one of the first (if not the first) “self- service” parking ramps in the City.53 By 1959, at least six private ramps had been constructed or were

47 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 76. 48 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 76. 49 F. K. Dhainin, A Statement Outlining an Approach to the Further Study of the Parking Problems for the Central Business District and an Interpretation of the Basic Problems (prepared for the City Planning Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 1945), 1 – 17. 50 Dhainin, A Statement Outlining an Approach…, 15. 51 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 21. Architectural historian Larry Millet notes that before 1945, no modern parking ramps had been constructed in downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. 52 John Wickland, Minneapolis Tribune, December 3, 1950. 53 John Wickland, “Work Starts Monday on Loop Parking Ramp,” Minneapolis Tribune, December 3, 1950; Ron Johnson, “No Parking Problem in City, Says Ramp Head,” Minnesota Motorist, August 8, 1958; “Parking Ramp to Become Self-service,” Minneapolis Star, January 16, 1956; “Parking Ramp Opens,” Minneapolis Tribune, August 23, 1951; “Second Ramp Opening Set,” Minneapolis Star, September 27, 1951.

3.12

under construction, including ramps next to the Donaldson’s Department Store, Dayton’s Department Store and the Radisson Hotel, Marquette National Bank, and First National Bank. In addition, a municipal parking ramp was constructed at Third Street South and Third Avenue in 1960 (1960, razed, Third Street South and Third Avenue).54 The locations of private parking ramps reflected the locations of downtown businesses, which in the mid-1950s were concentrated between Hennepin Avenue to the west, 2nd Avenue to the east, Washington Avenue to the north, and 10th Avenue to the south. Businesses included approximately three dozen apparel stores, three general stores, three department stores (Dayton’s, Donaldson’s, and Powers department stores), twelve furniture and appliance stores, seven jewelers, twenty-two variety stores, nine miscellaneous retailers, thirteen hotels, fourteen banks and savings and loan associations, and twelve restaurants and night clubs. Retailers operating in downtown Minneapolis included well- known names such as the Maurice L. Rothschild-Young-Quinlain Company (1926, renovated in 1989, 901 Nicollet Mall), J. B. Hudson Jewelers, F. W. Woolworth and S. S. Kresge.55 Gould’s apparel store and Weld & Sons Jewelers occupied the Medical Arts Building (1923 with 1929 addition, 825 Nicollet Mall). Millet notes that “a few new commercial buildings, such as a 1946 addition to Dayton’s Department Store in Minneapolis, appeared immediately after the war, but it was not until the 1950s that major works in the Midcentury Modern style began to change the face of [Minneapolis and St. Paul].”56 These included the Lutheran Brotherhood Building (1956, razed 1997, 701 Second Avenue South), constructed in 1956 to provide a permanent downtown location for the company,57 as well as the First National Bank Building (1958, renovated 1981, 120 6th Street South). However, it was not until the 1960s that redevelopment of downtown began in earnest.58 Urban Commercial Districts

Within Minneapolis proper, outlying commercial districts formed at streetcar lines and intersections of major roads continued to offer shopping and services in the postwar era. In 1954, the Twin City Rapid Transit Company ceased operations of its streetcar system, bringing Minneapolis entirely into the era of the automobile. Congestion at busy intersections made it difficult to add parking at older commercial strips entirely oriented to the streetcar, but commercial strips developed during the 1920s and 30s were better able to add parking to accommodate expanded automobile use.59 Auto- oriented development was especially evident along Lake Street, an east-west arterial in South Minneapolis, which by the mid-1950s had developed into a “Miracle Mile” strip with dozens of new

54 Ron Johnson, “No Parking Problem in City, Says Ramp Head,” Minnesota Motorist, August 8, 1958; “Mayor Opens Ramp,” Minneapolis Tribune, November 30, 1954; “Ramp Site Picked,” Minneapolis Tribune, June 22, 1958; Russell Hurst and Leonard Inskip, “3 Parking Ramps to Be Built in City,” Minneapolis Tribune, February 29, 1956; “Clearing the Decks,” Minneapolis Star, April 21, 1955; Leonard Inskip, “City’s 7th Car Ramp Since ’50 to Be Started,” Minneapolis Tribune, August 16, 1959; “Parking Ramp Changes Hands,” Minneapolis Star, November 8, 1955; “Ramp to Open,” Minneapolis Tribune, July 3, 1960. 55 Advertising Department of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Metropolitan Minneapolis Shopping Areas, (Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company, 1956), p. 7 – 8. 56 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 69. 57 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 69. 58 Dave Kenney, Twin Cities Album: A Visual History (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 213 – 215; “Minnesota Modern Registry,” docomomo-us-mn.org, accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern- registry.html. 59 Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 109.

3.13

and used-car lots, flashy signage and neon lights (for more information on the roadside architecture of the postwar era, see Chapter 8, Arts, Culture, and Recreation).60

Figure 3.6 By the mid-1950s, Lake Street featured dozens of new and used car lots. Lake Street near Clinton Avenue, c. 1960. Minnesota Historical Society.

A 1956 report produced by the Minneapolis Star and Tribune identified 21 “super” and neighborhood shopping districts in the city. “Super” (major) shopping districts ranged from two blocks to several blocks in length and were located along major roads that had formerly held streetcar lines. Four such districts were located in South Minneapolis, two in Northeast Minneapolis, one in Southwest Minneapolis, and one in North Minneapolis (see Table 3.1). A few of these districts contained a department store branch, and most contained theaters, variety stores, grocery stores, furniture stores, appliance stores, clothing stores, hardware stores, and drugstores as well as other specialty shops, restaurants, and service firms. Neighborhood (minor) shopping districts were located in North Minneapolis (two districts), South Minneapolis (five districts), Southwest Minneapolis (two districts), near the University of Minnesota’s East Bank campus (two districts), near the Midway area at Minneapolis’s west border (one district), and in areas just southwest and southeast of downtown. Neighborhood shopping districts featured banks, theaters, junior department stores, variety stores, drugstores, restaurants, and various specialty shops and service firms.61 Eastgate Shopping Center (c. 1954, razed, Central Avenue Southeast and University Avenue South) was also located in

60 Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 109, 115; Diers & Isaacs, Twin Cities by Trolley, 10.

61 Advertising Department of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Metropolitan Minneapolis Shopping Areas, map and p. 11 – 14.

3.14

Sortheast Minneapolis, and appears to have been the only (or one of the only) shopping center strip malls within the city by the mid-1950s.62 Table 3.1: Locations of outlying shopping districts in Minneapolis in 1956:

Minneapolis Shopping District Type Location

Two-block strip along Lake Street on either side of the intersection of Bloomington Major South Avenue and Lake Street Three-block strip along Lake Street between Columbus Avenue and Tenth Avenue Major South South Four-block area surrounding the intersection of Nicollet Avenue and Lake Street Major South Four-block area along Lake Street near the intersection of 27th Avenue and Lake Major South Street Twelve-block strip on Franklin Avenue between Chicago and Cedar Avenues Minor South Three-block strip on Nicollet Avenue from 36th to 39th Streets Minor South Small area surrounding the intersection of 48th Street and Chicago Avenue Minor South Small area surrounding the intersection of 50th Street and 34th Avenue South Minor South Three-block strip on Lyndale Avenue between Minnehaha Parkway and 55th Street Minor South Several-block area on East Hennepin and Central Avenues between Main Street and Major Northeast 5th Street Northeast Several-block strip along Central Avenue between 19th and 26th Avenues Northeast Major Northeast Five-block area surrounding Hennepin Avenue and Lake Street Major Southwest Small area surrounding the intersection of 43rd Street and Upton Avenue South Minor Southwest Two small areas surrounding the intersections of 50th Street and Penn Avenue South Minor Southwest and 54th Street and Penn Avenue South Two-mile strip on West Broadway between Washington Avenue North and 26th Major North Avenue North Several-block area on Lyndale and Washington Avenue North between 41st and Minor North 45th Avenues North Small area around the intersection of Plymouth and Washington Avenues North Minor North Three-block strip along Nicollet Avenue between Grant Street and 17th Street Minor Near downtown Area surrounding the intersection of Washington Avenue South and Cedar Avenue Near Minor and a four-block strip on Cedar Avenue from Washington Avenue to Fifth Street downtown

62 “Site of New Eastgate Shopping Center in Minneapolis,” Minneapolis Star, August 26, 1954. The 1956 publication Metropolitan Minneapolis Shopping Areas contains a map showing the locations of all shopping centers and shopping districts located in the Minneapolis metropolitan area in 1956. No shopping centers are depicted within Minneapolis proper on this map; however, page 11 of the publication indicates that Eastgate Shopping Center was located within the East Hennepin super shopping district.

3.15

Minneapolis Shopping District Type Location

Area at the intersection of 4th Avenue Southeast and 14th Street Minor University of MN Area at the intersection of Oak Street and Washington Avenue Southeast Minor University of MN Several-block strip along University Avenue near the Minneapolis – St. Paul border Minor Midway area Advertising Department of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, Metropolitan Minneapolis Shopping Areas (Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company, 1956), 11 - 14.

Figure 3.7 Eastgate Shopping Center, which opened in 1955 in Northeast Minneapolis, appears to have been the only shopping center located within the city limits by the mid-1950s. Eastgate Shopping Center, May 28, 1956. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society. Industry at the Core and Peripheries

By the late 1940s, technologies of production and warehousing had created a preference for one- story industrial buildings, rather than multi-story buildings, and the beginnings of freeway construction encouraged the development of truck-oriented industrial sites on highways in outlying areas of the Twin Cities. Consequently, warehouse and light industrial areas to the northwest and southeast of downtown Minneapolis became increasingly obsolete during the postwar era.63 Between 1946 and 1960, 93 industrial plants relocated either a portion or all of the facilities from Minneapolis to the suburbs; almost half of these represented departures from locations near

63 Martin and Goddard, Past Choices/Present Landscapes, 165.

3.16

downtown. Though these 93 firms represented only a small percentage of the city’s 4,000 industrial firms, a 1960 report by the Minneapolis Planning Commission indicated that “many of these industries were the City’s best - - in terms of employment, forward-looking management, and adequacy of financing, so that the effect of their leaving is out of proportion to their numbers.”64 Geographers Ronald Abler, John Adams, and John Borchert note that “the companies shifting [to the suburbs in the immediate postwar era] were mainly those which had been most affected by the booms in housing and family formation – grocery and appliance distributors, millwork manufacturers and distributors.”65 Much of this suburban industrial development extended existing rail-industrial strips, such as the industrial belt along the Milwaukee Railroad from South Minneapolis to St. Louis Park and Hopkins, which attracted new food warehouses and processors and machine industries from central Minneapolis during the immediate postwar era. Another example was the North Minneapolis rail-industrial strip along the Mississippi River, which was extended into suburban areas by agricultural processors and machinery and metal work firms.66 A c. 1949 directory of Minneapolis industries produced by the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce summarized the transportation options available to Minneapolis industries in the postwar era: ten trunk line railroads…radiate from the city in all directions. In addition, 120 motor freight carriers operate regular service to North and South Dakota, Wisconsin Montana, Iowa, Missouri and Upper Michigan. At the head of the Mississippi river navigation, Minneapolis maintains regular barge service to and from New Orleans during the navigation season…three barge companies handle water traffic.67 According to the directory, “machinery, electrical and heating apparatus, textile, apparel, chemical and scores of other manufacturing lines have developed to make this city the industrial center of the Upper Midwest.”68 During the postwar era, high-technology manufacturing and medical technology industries began to make their mark on the Minneapolis economy. Federally-funded research into computer development during World War II led to commercial computer development by Twin Cities firms such as St. Paul’s Engineering Research Associates (which was acquired by Remington Rand in 1952 and became Sperry-Rand in the mid-1950s) and Minneapolis’s Control Data Corporation (founded in 1957) after the war. In addition, the medical device manufacturing giant Medtronic was established in 1949. Its battery-powered external heart pacemaker, the first of its kind, was invented by founder Earl Bakken in 1958, sparking the rapid growth of the firm.69

64 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, Anatomy of Industry - - Minneapolis, 1960 ([Minneapolis, MN?]: [1960?]), 16. 65 Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 55. 66 Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, 57. 67 Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Guide to Minneapolis Manufacturers ([Minneapolis, MN?]: [Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce?], c. 1949), 2. 68 Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Guide to Minneapolis Manufacturers, 2. 69 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 117 – 118; Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 222 – 224; Ralph Mason, “Control Data Hits Back at Sperry Charges,” Minneapolis Star, May 27, 1958; Andrew B. Stone and Sarah Shirey, “Medtronic,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified February 21, 2017, http://www.mnopedia.org/group/medtronic; Kirk Jeffrey, “The Major Manufacturers: From Food and Forest Products to High Technology,” in Minnesota in a Century of Change, edited by Clifford E. Clark, Jr. (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1989), 242 – 245.

3.17

c. 1960 - 1975: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY INTO THE MODERN ERA Downtown Commerce and Urban Commercial Districts

In general, the increasing incomes and consumption that followed World War II encouraged the growth of the retail trade in Minneapolis. The number of residents employed in service occupants tripled from 1960 to 1980, mirroring a national increase in the volume of service jobs. The city also saw growth in finance, insurance, and real estate businesses.70 During the 1960s and 70s, the pace of retail and office construction in the suburban metropolitan area increased. New suburban jobs concentrated in a few major suburban commercial and industrial districts, at freeway interchanges such as West Highway 55 in Golden Valley and Plymouth and West Highway 12 in Golden Valley, Plymouth, and Minnetonka.71 In particular, the southwest quadrant of the metropolitan area experienced large growth during the 1960s and 70s, attributable both to expansions and relocations of businesses from Minneapolis’s central core but also to new business start-ups and relocations of businesses from areas outside of the Twin Cities.72 Southdale, the Twin Cities’ first enclosed shopping center, was followed by Brookdale, Rosedale, Ridgedale, and other enclosed regional centers, all anchored by a Dayton’s Department Store.73 By 1976, there were eight major regional shopping centers located in Twin Cities suburbs.74 The number of discount stores in the Twin Cities also increased - between 1961 and 1963, 14 discount stores opened in the Twin Cities area, with Minneapolis-based Target emerging as a leader by the mid- 1960s.75

A series of surveys of female shoppers by the Minneapolis Star and the Minneapolis Tribune between 1955 and 1965 indicate the shifting landscape of retail in the metropolitan area. In general, the surveys indicated that Twin Cities women were increasingly shopping at growing numbers of suburban centers and discount stores, and shopping less frequently in both downtown and in Minneapolis’s outlying shopping districts. Between 1955 and 1965, the percentage of Hennepin County women (both urban and suburban) shopping in a Minneapolis shopping district at least once a year declined from 87% to 69%, and at least once a week from 57% to 26%. The number of Hennepin County women shopping downtown at least once a year decreased from 90% in 1955 to 81% in 1963 and 1965, and at least once a month from 64% to 40% (though suburban rather than urban women were most responsible for this decrease). In contrast, the number of the County’s female shoppers frequenting shopping centers and discount stores at least once per year increased from 64 to 89% over the ten-year span, and at least once a month from 46% to 73%, with the greatest increases coming from Minneapolis residents. Retail sales within Minneapolis accounted for

70 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 118. 71 Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, 57 – 59; Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 111. 72 Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, 59. 73 Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis–St. Paul, 84, 110; Stephanie K. Atwood and Charlene K. Roise, New Hope, Minnesota: A Historical Context (Minneapolis, MN: Hess, Roise and Company, February 2010), 12. 74 Abler, Adams, and Borchert, The Twin Cities, 59. 75 Research Department of the Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star, Retail Revolution, 1955 – 1965 ([Minneapolis, MN?]: [Minneapolis Star and Minneapolis Tribune?], 1965), 19.

3.18 increasingly less of the total retail sales in Hennepin County: in 1954, Minneapolis was responsible for 83% of the County’s retail sales; by 1963, the city was responsible for 64%.76

Figure 3.8 The Northwestern National Life Insurance building was one of many buildings constructed as part of the Gateway Center Urban Renewal Project in downtown Minneapolis. Northwestern National Life Insurance building, August 6, 1975. Steve Plattner, Minnesota Historical Society.

In an attempt to respond to suburban competition, downtown businessmen and city planners turned to federally-supported Urban Renewal programs to redevelop downtown’s physical infrastructure. The renewal of the 65-acre Gateway Center area, the old core of downtown Minneapolis roughly bounded by Hennepin Avenue, Fourth Street South, Third Avenue South, and First Street South, was intended to replace the primarily small-scale commercial and retail blocks in the district with new institutional office buildings, hotels or motels, and multi-level parking ramps. The project, which had begun in earnest by the early 1960s, displaced 454 businesses (a mix of wholesale, light industrial, office, retail, and lodging use) from the area. 73% were relocated within the city limits; others were liquidated (for more information on Urban Renewal, see Chapter 4). In their place, public buildings such as the Minneapolis Public Library (1961, razed, 300 Nicollet Mall) arose, followed by private projects such as the Northwestern National Life Building (1964, 20 Washington Avenue South) and the Sheraton-Ritz Hotel (1963, razed 1990, 315 Nicollet Avenue). The Northstar Center (1962, 625 Marquette Avenue, Figure 3.10) was an especially innovative office building. Built as a pair of nine-story towers separated by an open-air plaza, the building was set on top of a parking ramp with first-level retail shops and featured the first skyway bridge in

76 Research Department of the Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star, Retail Revolution, 5 – 7, 12 - 18.

3.19

Minneapolis.77 These buildings represented only some of the 2.4 million new square feet of office space constructed downtown during the 1960s. By 1970, downtown contained over 50% of the office space in the metro area.78 Construction of downtown office buildings continued through the early 1970s, which saw the beginnings of a wave of skyscraper construction in Minneapolis. Between 1970 and 1978, thirty major buildings were constructed downtown. These included the IDS Center (1972, 80 Eight Street South), which connected the skyway systems of the city’s Nicollet Avenue retail and Marquette Avenue office districts.79 Parking ramp construction continued through the 1960s, with some designed by local architects such as Larson and McLaren, Setter, Leach & Lindstrom, and Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates. By 1964, there were an estimated 6,000 parking stalls spread between 11 downtown private parking ramps. By the mid-1960s, demolition of buildings in the Gateway Center Urban Renewal Project area had also freed up space for additional parking lots, creating competition for parking ramp owners. One of the more innovative parking ramps constructed during the 1960s, the five-story parking ramp at 815 Chicago Avenue (c. 1969) near the Swedish and St. Barnabas Hospitals, was possibly the first parking ramp in the city to use the post-tensioning system of concrete construction. Another unique parking ramp at 14 5th Street (c. 1966, Figure 3.9) next to the Northern Power States Company building featured a distinctive corkscrew design.80

77 Martin and Goddard, Past Choices/Present Landscapes, 58 – 69; National Register of Historic Places, NorthStar Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #16000441, Section 8, pages 1 – 14, https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/16000441.pdf; Larry Millet, Lost Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1992), 261 – 263. 78 Borchert et. al, Legacy of Minneapolis, 50; Linda Mack, “Gateways of Change,” Architecture Minnesota 17, no. 3 (May/June 1991), 36 – 38, 64 – 65. 79 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 72; National Register of Historic Places, NorthStar Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #16000441, Section 8, page 13; Iric Nathanson, Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century: The Growth of an American City (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society, 2009), 169 – 172; Borchert et al., Legacy of Minneapolis, 52. 80 “Nicollet Parkade Opens Tomorrow,” Minneapolis Star, October 29, 1965; “10th-Marquette Parking Ramp to Open Monday,” Minneapolis Tribune, March 8, 1961; “‘Costs Excessive’ Wakefield Raps City Ownership of Auto Ramps,” Minneapolis Star, September 24, 1964; “Work Starts on New 450-Car Parking Ramp near Courthouse,” Minneapolis Star, April 4, 1961; Abe Altrowitz, “Free Parking Costs Business $1 Million,” Minneapolis Star, March 19, 1964; David Kuhn, “Downtown Parking Spaces Have Doubled in 9 Years,” Minneapolis Tribune, April 10, 1966; “Corkscrew?” Minneapolis Star, September 22, 1966; “Parking Ramps to Open,” Minneapolis Tribune, November 27, 1966; Beverly Kees, “City Ramp to Use Concrete Innovation,” Minneapolis Star, February 10, 1969.

3.20

Figure 3.9 This corkscrew-style ramp was one of the more distinctive private ramps constructed downtown after World War II. Parking ramp at 14 5th Street, August 6, 1975. Steve Plattner, Minnesota Historical Society.

3.21

Figure 3.10 Northstar Center, constructed in 1962, featured the first skyway in Minneapolis, as well as an elevated courtyard and two nine-story towers set above a parking ramp. Northstar Center, 1967. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

Downtown’s premier retail district along Nicollet Avenue was revitalized in the 1960s with the creation of Nicollet Mall (1967, expanded 1970s, renovated 1991, downtown Minneapolis from Grant Street to Washington Avenue South). Developed by the Downtown Council’s task force to retain and increase the customer base of Nicollet Avenue’s retail businesses, the Nicollet Mall project converted a portion of Nicollet Avenue to a bus and pedestrian-only transit way accented with landscaping, public art, and large pedestrian sidewalks. Architectural historian Larry Millett notes that “unlike most urban malls of its time, it provided to be a success, providing the downtown with a strong central corridor,” and the increased sales of Nicollet Avenue retailers in 1970 demonstrate the mall’s initial positive impact. During the early 1970s, the mall was extended to the south and Peavey Plaza (1975, 1101 Nicollet Mall) was constructed at the intersection of Nicollet Mall and 12th Street

3.22

South to provide a public event and gathering space (see Chapter 8, Arts, Culture, and Recreation, for more information on Peavey Plaza).81

Figure 3.11 Nicollet Mall, constructed in 1967, was designed to revitalize retail along Nicollet Avenue. The project represents a larger trend of pedestrian malls and spaces being integrated into downtowns and urban areas. Nicollet Mall, c. 1968. Minnesota Historical Society.

The skyway system that developed throughout the 1960s and 1970s also changed the shape of downtown retail. By the end of 1972, the eight skyways constructed in Minneapolis had brought national attention to the city. A 1972 article in the Minneapolis Tribune noted that “the skyways are more than bridges to a network of second-story corridors, for many corridors have small stores, snack shops and bank-teller windows geared directly to the heavy foot traffic. Second-floor rents have zoomed to nearly double in some instances, often equaling ground-floor rents.”82 Like Nicollet Mall, the skyways drew visitors to Minneapolis, including “visiting aldermen, retail executives and city planners.”83

81 Nathanson, Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century, 172 – 175; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 76; National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #12001173, p. 6 – 10. 82 Howard Erickson, “8th Skyway to Open This Week,” Minneapolis Tribune, November 27, 1972. 83 Howard Erickson, “8th Skyway to Open This Week,” Minneapolis Tribune, November 27, 1972.

3.23

Although retailers continued to leave downtown Minneapolis for outlying locations, evidence suggests that downtown was able to retain some of its historic strength as a center for retail and commerce. In 1977, the retail census showed that downtown retailers were responsible for 15% of all goods sold in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the largest amount of any retail center in the 10- county region.84 Industry

By 1960, industry in Minneapolis was divided between manufacturing (with manufacturing firms representing approximately 33% of the city’s 4,000 industrial companies), wholesaling (33%), construction contracting (25%) and utility installations, public warehouses, transportation terminals, and other miscellaneous industrial activities.

Figure 3.12 Between 1930 and 1960, the area around Stinson Boulevard in Northeast Minneapolis had continued to develop as a hub of industrial development. Aerial photograph, 1964. John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota.

84 Stipanovich, City of Lakes, 121; Borchert et al., The Legacy of Minneapolis, 50 – 51.

3.24

Major manufacturing industries in Minneapolis included food manufacturing, printing, fabricated metal products, and machinery manufacturing, as well as electrical machinery manufacturing, a newer arrival to the city. 40% of the city’s industrial plants had 10 or more employees, and 5% had 100 or more employees.85 In outlying areas of the city, industry was generally concentrated in the same locations as it was in 1930, in industrial areas along railroad lines and to the northwest and southeast of downtown. By 1960, the city’s industrial areas could be divided into thirteen distinct districts: Humboldt-Camden, Shoreham-Marshall, North River, Central-Northeast, Stinson Boulevard, Elm Street-Milling, and East Side in North and Northeast Minneapolis; the North Loop, South Loop and Linden- Hawthorne-Glenwood to the northwest, west, and southeast of downtown; and 29th Street, Hiawatha Avenue, and the Richfield Yards in South Minneapolis. According to a 1960 report produced by the Minneapolis Planning Commission, the city’s 10 northern districts each featured distinct characteristics. For example, the report noted that the North River district tends to be characterized by the junk yards in its lower reaches; the Elm Street-Milling district is known for its specialization in grain storage and processing; and the extensive terminal facilities, multi-story warehouses, and garment district distinguish the North Loop. The three districts in south Minneapolis are somewhat different in that they are isolated from one another and tend to be smaller than those in the north.86 In a 1962 report produced by the City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, planners sounded an alarm about the decentralization of Minneapolis industries: The 1960 census was quite a shock to many. For the first time in its short history Minneapolis lost population, while the suburbs more than doubled. The 1958 Census of Business revealed that virtually all the gain in commercial activity was outside the City; and lists of new industrial construction show a steady stream of manufacturers heading out of Minneapolis into the suburban ring. New freeways designed to feed the central area are going to carry traffic in the opposite direction as well. If Minneapolis is to remain the community it is today, positive action to retain a strong economic base will be needed.87 By the early 1960s, the city’s old, multi-story industrial buildings were deteriorating, and industrial firms located within the City faced a lack of available land for expansion and parking.88 Between 1962 and 1970, 176 industries left Minneapolis for suburban locations, taking with them 11,000 jobs and $1,666,000 in property taxes. Driven by a lack of adequate space and lured by the promise of easy commutes and cheaper land on the outskirts, companies such as Onan Manufacturing (Fridley) and Char-Lynn Corporation (Eden Prairie) relocated during the 1960s and early 1970s. In general,

85 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, Anatomy of Industry, 4; City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, Industry Square in Downtown Minneapolis, Industrial Survey Series No. 8, 1962, p. 16, Minnesota Historical Society. 86 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, Anatomy of Industry, 2. 87 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, Industry Square in Downtown Minneapolis, 2. 88 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, Anatomy of Industry, 7 – 14; City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, Industry Square, 2 – 32.

3.25 relocation during these years was most frequent in periods of good economic development and lowest during periods of recession.89

Figure 3.13 Map showing industrial structures in Minneapolis by era of construction, pre-1960 to 1980. Map developed by Visible City, 2020.

89 Minneapolis Industrial Development Commission, Industrial Migration Study, 1962 – 1973 ([Minneapolis, MN?]: [1973?]), 5 – 17.

3.26

In an effort to attract industrial businesses to the City, the City of Minneapolis established the Minneapolis Industrial Development Commission in 1966. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw the creation of the city’s first private and public industrial parks, including Seward South industrial urban renewal area, the private Mid-City Industrial Park in Northeast Minneapolis, and the North Washington Industrial Center along the west bank of the Mississippi River in North Minneapolis. Though industrial relocation to the suburbs continued through the early 1970s, the size and number of migrating firms decreased, suggesting that the City’s efforts had at least some measure of success.90

Figure 3.14 During the late 1960s and early 1970s, private and public industrial parks developed in Minneapolis. The American Linen Supply Plant was located in the Mid-City Industrial Park in Northeast Minneapolis. American Linen Supply Company, 1972. Department of Community Planning and Economic Development Collection, Hennepin County Library.

90 Minneapolis Industrial Development Commission, Industrial Migration Study, 3, 16; Martin and Goddard, Past Choices/Present Landscapes, 165 – 173; Martin Merrick, “Native Back to Lead City Push for Industry,” Minneapolis Star, September 9, 1966; “We’ve Bought 52 Acres…” Minneapolis Tribune, January 18, 1970; “The Virtue of Self-Interest,” Minneapolis Tribune, January 16, 1972.

3.27

PRESERVATION OVERVIEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION

In order for a property to be designated as historic, it must meet criteria for designation outlined in federal, state, and/or local preservation frameworks. In general, a property must be recognized as a property type that is eligible for preservation, and exhibit sufficient historic significance and historic integrity for designation. This section provides an overview of federal and local designation for historic properties, and outlines the relevant laws and regulations related to each level of designation. Federal Designation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, is a key piece of federal legislation that provides for the protection of cultural resources in the United States. The NHPA established the NRHP as “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worth of preservation.” The NHPA also established State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). To be considered NRHP-eligible, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria defined by the National Park Service: Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Association with the life of a significant person.

Criterion C: Embody a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.

Criterion D: Yield, or be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.

Certain types of properties are not typically eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criteria Considerations allow for properties such as cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years to be considered eligible if they are integral parts of larger historic districts that do meet the standard criteria, or if they fall under one of the Considerations below:

Criterion Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criterion Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criterion Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his production life.

3.28

Criterion Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criterion Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified matter as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived.

Criterion Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance.

Criterion Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years it is of exceptional importance.

If a property is determined to possess historic significance under one of these criteria, its integrity is evaluated using the seven aspects of integrity. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation identifies the seven aspects of integrity to be used in evaluating properties for eligibility. These aspects of integrity are: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location: The place where the property was constructed of the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting: The physical environment/character of the place where the property played its historical role.

Design: How well the property retains combinations of elements creating its form, plan, space, structure, and style.

Materials: How physical elements were combined at specific time periods and in particular patterns to create the property.

Workmanship: How well a property retains physical evidence of the crafts of a particular time period in history.

Feeling: The combination of the property’s physical features that express the historic sense of a particular time period.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

If a property is determined to possess historical significance under one or more criteria, retains sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance, and meets any applicable criteria considerations, the property is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

3.29

City of Minneapolis Local Designation

The City of Minneapolis defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of seven criteria, as outlined in Section 599.210 of the City of Minneapolis Municipal Code. The criteria that must be considered when determining the local historic significance of a property include: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. 3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES AND RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Property types associated with the themes of business and industry within the context of Minneapolis in the Modern Era will be located within the city limits of Minneapolis, will have achieved significance between 1930 and 1975, and will demonstrate historic significance under one or more designation criteria in connection to these themes. This section describes the property types most likely to be associated with these themes, and the associated property types’ relationship to NRHP and local designation criteria. Associated Property Types

Specific property types associated with the themes of business and industry within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 are listed below. Of the property categories acknowledged by the National Register (buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects), properties associated with these themes are most likely to be buildings, districts, or structures. These might include: 1) Properties associated with Minneapolis business, such as a. Downtown retail and office buildings b. Downtown skyways c. Outlying urban commercial districts d. Outlying corporate office campuses (if constructed within city limits) e. Shopping centers and discount store buildings

3.30

f. Parking ramps and parking lots 2) Properties associated with Minneapolis industry, such as a. Buildings for warehousing and manufacturing in downtown warehouse districts and outlying urban industrial districts b. Parking lots and other automobile-oriented infrastructure c. Private and public industrial parks 3) Properties associated with famous individuals who achieved significance in the areas of business or industry, including places of residence and work. Associated Properties’ Relationship to National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, properties must have obtained significance for one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following section provides suggestions on how properties associated with the themes of business and industry within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 might be evaluated for significance under these four criteria. The term “subject property” is used to refer to properties associated with these themes. For additional information, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.91 Criterion A: Association with Significant Events

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, subject properties must be “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” These events include 1) “a specific event marking an important moment in American prehistory or history” and 2) “a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation.” Some historic events and trends identified in this chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 with which subject properties might be associated include 1) the decentralization of business and industry during the Modern Era and efforts to combat decentralization; 2) the effects of increasing automobile use on Minneapolis businesses and industries; 3) effects of the Great Depression on Minneapolis businesses and industries; 4) production and innovation fueled by government contracts during World War II; 5) Minneapolis’s shift from a manufacturing-based economy to one based on service organizations and financial institutions; and 6) the growth of high-technology manufacturing and medical technology industries in the city. These events and trends are linked to several Areas of Significance defined by the National Park 92 Service in the National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. These include: • Commerce: “the business of trading goods, services, and commodities”

91 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. 92 For a complete list of Areas of Significance, see the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf.

3.31

• Industry: “the technology and process of managing materials, labor, and equipment to produce goods and services” • Invention: “the art of originating by experiment or ingenuity an object, system, or concept of practical value” Subject properties may be considered for significance under Criterion A within these Areas of Significance. For example, an industrial park that reflects the development of public industrial parks by the City of Minneapolis in response to the decentralization of industrial firms could be considered for significance under Criterion A within the Area of Significance of Industry. The period of significance for a subject property evaluated under Criterion A should reflect the time period during which the property achieved significance. The level of significance will likely be local, though properties associated with nationally-recognized Minneapolis firms (such as Medtronic) or with developments that drew national attention (such as downtown skyways) might demonstrate significance at the state or national level.

Criterion B: Association with Significant Persons

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B, properties must be “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” A significant individual is one “whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.” Within the themes explored in this chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975, the individual might have achieved significance within the realms of business or industry. To be significant for association with an individual, a subject property must have been associated with the individual during the time when he or she achieved significance, and the property must be the best illustration of that individual’s achievements. The individual must have directly influenced the conception and/or development of the property, or have lived in the property while making their contributions to their respective fields in Minneapolis. For example, a subject property significant under Criterion B could include the house in which the founder of a significant Minneapolis retail firm lived. The length of association with the individual in comparison with other associated properties should also be considered. In the example above, the founder’s house is more likely to be eligible for the NRHP if the firm’s offices or headquarters are no longer extant. Properties identified as the best representation of an individual’s contributions might be eligible under Criterion B in the Areas of Significance of Commerce, Industry, or Invention, though other categories might apply depending on the nature of the individual’s accomplishments. The period of significance should reflect the time period during which the individual achieved significance and was associated with the property. The area of significance would likely be local, although properties associated with individuals with national or international reputations might demonstrate significance at the state or national level. Properties significant for association with notable architects or contractors should be considered under Criterion C. Criterion C: Design/Construction

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible under Criterion C, properties must “embody the distinctive 3.32 characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or…represent the work of a master, or…possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Properties that represent a type, period, or method of construction are those that illustrate, through distinctive features, a particular architectural style or construction method. They might illustrate “the pattern of features common to a particular class of resources, the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, the evolution of that class, or the transition between classes of resources.” These properties might be significant in the Areas of Significance of Engineering, “the practical application of scientific principles to design, construct, and operate equipment, machinery, and structures to serve human needs,” or Architecture, “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs.” For subject properties to be considered eligible under Criterion C in the context of this chapter, they must exemplify design trends, methods of construction, or a class of resources specific to the themes of business and industry. For example, a one-story industrial building might be nominated under Criterion C for the distinctive features that characterize it as an example of a class of resources developed as a response to new technologies of warehousing and production that arose during the Modern Era. Properties that appear representative of modern architectural styles or the work of a master (i.e., a notable architect, engineer, or contractor), or that possess high artistic value, should be evaluated within the context of Chapter 9, “Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects.” The level of significance would likely be local. However, Minneapolis was at the forefront of the development of some property types (such as the shopping center, the skyway, and privately- developed parking ramps), suggesting that some subject properties might demonstrate significance at the state or national level. All properties designated under Criterion C should have a period of significance synonymous with their date of construction. Criterion D: Information Potential

To be considered eligible under Criterion D, properties must “have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion D, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the themes of business and industry within this context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion D.

3.33

Criterion Considerations:

The temporal period of this context study ends in 1975, 45 years from today’s date. Thus, it is possible that some associated properties may have achieved exceptional significance within the past 50 years under Criterion G. Associated Properties’ Relationship to Local Designation Criteria: Criterion 1: Association with Significant Events

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion A (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Association with Significant Persons or Groups

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion B (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 2. Criterion 3: Association with City or Neighborhood Identity

As places of local employment and commerce, neighborhood commercial districts and industrial complexes are often closely linked to the identity of a neighborhood. Additionally, significant Minneapolis firms such as General Mills and Medtronic have contributed to the identity of the city. Thus, it is likely that some subject properties will be eligible for local designation under Criterion 3 for association with neighborhood or city identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

Properties that meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 4. Some properties considered for significance under local Criterion 4 should be evaluated under the themes of Architecture and Architects, discussed in Chapter 9, rather than under the themes of business and industry. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

Some properties that meet National Register Criterion C (see above) as representative of a class of resources might also be eligible under local Criterion 5. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 6. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion 7, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category.

3.34

Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the themes of business and industry within the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion 7 for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion 7. Integrity

To retain integrity, a subject property must retain most or all of the seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that retain integrity will have the ability to communicate their historic significance through their physical features. For more information on integrity, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Other Considerations The suburbanization and decentralization of residential and industrial development during the Modern Era encouraged new construction to be located outside of the Minneapolis city limits. Thus, some of the resources that best reflect the trends discussed in this chapter, such as the development of the suburban corporate office campus and the shopping center, may be located in adjacent suburbs rather than within the city proper.

3.35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abler, Ronald, John S. Adams, and John R. Borchert. The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976.

Adams, John S. and Barbara J. VanDrasek. Minneapolis-St. Paul: People, Place and Public Life. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Advertising Department of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Metropolitan Minneapolis Shopping Areas. [Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company, 1956.

Anderson, Rolf T. “Minneapolis Warehouse District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form.” January 1987. https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/edb755f5-b6fe-4455- b89a-4171688efa70.

Atwood, Stephanie and Charlene K. Roise. New Hope, Minnesota: A Historical Context. Minneapolis, MN: Hess, Roise and Company, February 2010.

Baird, Thomas, Earl C. Meyer, and Winifred L. Green. “Discount Stores.” In Encyclopedia of Business nd and Finance, 2 ed. Thomson Gale, 2007. Accessed February 8, 2018. http://www.encyclopedia.com/finance/finance-and-accounting-magazines/discount-stores.

Borchert, John R., David Lanegran, David Gebhard, and Judith A. Martin. Legacy of Minneapolis: Preservation Amidst Change. Bloomington, MN: Voyageur Press, 1983.

City of Minneapolis Planning Commission. Anatomy of Industry - - Minneapolis, 1960. [Minneapolis, MN?]: [1960?].

City of Minneapolis Planning Commission. Industry Square in Downtown Minneapolis. Industrial Survey Series No. 8. 1962. Available at the Minnesota Historical Society.

Cohen, Lizabeth. A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2003.

Danbom, David B. “Flour Power: The Significance of Flour Milling at the Falls.” Minnesota History 58, no. 5 (Spring/Summer 2003): 270 – 285. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/58/v58i05-06p270-285.pdf.

Diers, John W. and Aaron Isaacs. Twin Cities by Trolley: The Streetcar Era in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

Dhainin, F. K. A Statement Outlining an Approach to the Further Study of the Parking Problems for the Central Business District and an Interpretation of the Basic Problems. Prepared for the City Planning Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 1945.

Erickson, Rodney A. “The Evolution of the Suburban Space Economy.” Urban Geography 4, no. 2 (April 1983): 95 – 121.

Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering and Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915 – 1945. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.

3.36

Fogelson, Robert M. Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, 1880 – 1950. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

General Mills, Inc. “Diversification Is Key Word in the History of General Mills.” Northwestern Miller, July 1973. Hanchett, Thomas W. “U.S. Tax Policy and the Shopping-Center Boom of the 1950s and 1960s.” American Historical Review 101, no. 4 (1996): 1082 – 1110. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2169635.

James K. Hosmer Special Collections. Minneapolis Moline Power Implement Company Collection. October 25, 2016. https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and- Services/Finding-aids/M/2000-157-Minneapolis-Moline-Power-Implement-Company- 2.pdf.

Jackson, Kenneth. “All the World's a Mall: Reflections on the Social and Economic Consequences of the American Shopping Center.” American Historical Review 101, no. 4 (October 1996): 1111 – 1121.

Jeffery, Kirk. “The Major Manufacturers: From Food and Forest Products to High Technology.” In Minnesota in a Century of Change, edited by Clifford E. Clark, Jr., 473 – 506. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1989.

Johnson, Frederick L. Suburban Dawn: The Emergence of Richfield, Edina and Bloomington. Richfield, MN: Richfield Historical Society, 2009.

Johnson, Ron. “No Parking Problem in City, Says Ramp Head.” Minnesota Motorist, August 8, 1958.

Kane, Lucile M. and Alan Ominsky. Twin Cities: A Pictorial History of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1983.

Kenney, Dave. Minnesota Goes to War: The Home Front During World War II. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

---. Twin Cities Album: A Visual History. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

Koch, Raymond L. “Politics and Relief in Minnesota during the 1930s.” Minnesota History 41, no. 4 (Winter 1968): 153 – 170. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/41/v41i04p153-170.pdf.

Kuhlman, Charles B. “The Influence of the Minneapolis Flour Mills Upon the Economic Development of Minnesota and the Northwest.” Minnesota History 6, no. 2 (June 1925): 141 – 154. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/6/v06i02p141-154.pdf.

Larson, Don. Land of the Giants: A History of Minnesota Business. Minneapolis, MN: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 1979.

Longstreth, Richard W. City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile and Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920 – 1950. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

3.37

Ludt, Tamara. Streetcar Commercial Building Context and Intensive Thematic Survey. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, August 2019.

Mack, Linda. “Gateways of Change.” Architecture Minnesota 17, no. 3 (May/June 1991): 36 – 39, 63 - 65.

Martin, Judith and Antony Goddard. Past Choices/Present Landscapes: The Impact of Urban Renewal on the Twin Cities. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1989. http://www.cura.umn.edu/publications/catalog/c1021.

Millett, Larry. AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007.

---. Lost Twin Cities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1992.

---. Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. Guide to Minneapolis Manufacturers. [Minneapolis, MN?]: [Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce?], c. 1949.

Minneapolis Directory Company. Davison’s Minneapolis City Directory. [Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1942 and 1944.

Minneapolis Industrial Committee. Facts on Minneapolis: Industrial Center of the Northwest. [Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Industrial Committee, c. 1929.

Minneapolis Industrial Development Commission. Industrial Migration Study, 1962 – 1973. [Minneapolis, MN?]: [1973?].

Minneapolis Star.

Minneapolis Star Journal.

Minneapolis Sunday Tribune.

Minneapolis Tribune. “Minnesota Modern Registry.” Docomomo-us-mn.org. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html.

Muller, Peter O. Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1981.

Nathanson, Iric. Minneapolis in the Twentieth Century: The Growth of an American City. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society, 2009.

National Register of Historic Places. Dayton’s Department Store. Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination #100004147. https://mn.gov/admin/assets/Daytons%20Department%20Store_tcm36-380634.pdf.

National Register of Historic Places. NorthStar Center. Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination #16000441. https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/16000441.pdf.

3.38

National Register of Historic Places. Peavey Plaza, Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination #12001173.

National Register of Historic Places. Thompson Flats. Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination #100003916. https://mn.gov/admin/assets/SRB_Thompson%20Flats_tcm36-371886.pdf.

PVN. Aaron Carlson Company Site Development History. Prepared for Hempel, December 2018.

Research Department of the Minneapolis Tribune and Minneapolis Star. Retail Revolution, 1955 – 1965. [Minneapolis, MN?]: [Minneapolis Star and Minneapolis Tribune?], 1965.

Silver, Jacob. “A Geographic Study of the Commercial Concentrations Located in Suburban Minneapolis.” Master’s thesis, [University of Minnesota?], 1953.

Sorensen, Kara. “Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified November 7, 2018. http://www.mnopedia.org/place/twin-cities-army- ammunition-plant.

Stipanovich, Joseph. City of Lakes: An Illustrated History of Minneapolis. Woodland Hills, CA: Windsor Publications, 1982.

Stone, Andrew B. and Sarah Shirey. “Medtronic.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified February 21, 2017. http://www.mnopedia.org/group/medtronic.

Tselos, George. “The Minneapolis Labor Movement in the 1930s.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1970.

Tweton, Jerome D. Depression: Minnesota in the Thirties. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, 1981.

Vaile, Roland S. ed. Impact of the Depression on Business Activity and Real Income in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Studies in Economics and Business No. 8. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1933.

Walker, Charles Rumford. American City: A Rank and File History of Minneapolis.1937. Reprint, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

Weber, Laura E. “‘Gentiles Preferred:’ Minneapolis Jews and Employment, 1920 – 1950.” Minnesota History 52, no. 5 (Spring 1991): 166 – 182. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/52/v52i05p166-182.pdf.

Zukin, Sharon. Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed American Culture. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005.

3.39

CHAPTER FOUR

Construction of Interstate 94 looking towards Blaisdell Avenue in Minneapolis, June 22, 1966. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

URBAN RENEWAL, INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

List of Figures

Figure 4.1: Aerial photographs WN-1T-132 (1957) and WN-2EE-101 (1964). 4.4 Figure 4.2: Gateway Park, 1939. 4.5 Figure 4.3: Public Health Center (now City of Minneapolis Public Service Center), 1958. 4.6 Figure 4.4: Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center, 1961. 4.7 Figure 4.5: Northwestern National Life Building, 1965. 4.7 Figure 4.6: The original Soo Line Office Building (later known as the Western Union 4.8 Building), 317 Second Avenue South before and after a 1962 façade modernization. Figure 4.7: Urban renewal areas in Minneapolis, 1974. 4.9 Figure 4.8: Cedar Square West Apartments, Cedar-Riverside Area, 1975. 4.10

Figure 4.9: Construction of the Beltline Highway (Highway 100), St. Louis Park, 4.11 Minnesota, August 17, 1937. Figure 4.10: Map of proposed interstate routes, 1958. 4.13 Figure 4.11: View of downtown Minneapolis from Interstate 35, 1968. 4.15 Figure 4.12: Construction of Interstate 94 looking towards Blaisdell Avenue in 4.16 Minneapolis, June 22, 1966. Figure 4.13: Aerial photograph 15AC, 1961. 4.18

URBAN RENEWAL, INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Perhaps no other development was as influential at shaping the landscape of American cities in the Modern Era as “urban renewal,” a movement to revitalize cities through large-scale demolition and redevelopment that began after World War II. In Minneapolis and elsewhere, the federal government partnered with municipalities to finance the razing and redevelopment of vast swaths of the urban core. Many of the interstate highways, housing developments, public buildings, and office towers in and around Minneapolis’s downtown core remain as monuments to this era. Though urban renewal destroyed many buildings, it had the unintended effect of encouraging the preservation of the built environment, both in Minneapolis and across the country. Beginning in the mid-1960s, reactions to urban renewal led to renewed interest in the historic preservation movement, and the first locally-designated historic sites were established in Minneapolis in the early 1970s. In both the demolition and preservation of existing buildings, however, the interests and stories of Minneapolis’s minority groups went largely unconsidered. URBAN RENEWAL

During the decades following World War II, “urban renewal” captured the imagination of Americans.1 Proponents of the movement, which included everyone from federal government officials to planning school faculty to common citizens, believed in what planning scholar Judith Martin describes as “the promise [that urban renewal could] solve the physical, social, and even the economic problems of American cities.”2 Broadly speaking, the physical, social, and economic problems in American cities during the 1950s can be traced to two related phenomena:

1) The lack of new development and maintenance of existing structures in urban cores during the war years

2) The mass movement of upper and middle class citizens out of urban cores and into newly developing suburbs during the post-war years

In cities across the country, deferred maintenance from the war years combined with the lower urban tax bases that had resulted from the suburban exodus of upper and middle class Americans. The result of this phenomena was the perception and sometimes reality that urban cores were left with crumbling buildings and roads, insufficient low-income housing and public transportation systems, and scores of small lots that made redevelopment at a “modern scale” infeasible. In a description of pre-urban renewal St. Paul, that could just as easily have been used to describe any other city in the country, architectural historian Jeffrey Hess describes popular opinion of the city’s downtown in the early 50s as “old, drab, and depressing with very few examples of

1 Urban Renewal is used in this context study to refer to federally-funded programs for the redevelopment of urban areas that began with the passage of the Housing Act of 1949. 2 Judith A. Martin and Antony Goddard, Past Choices/Present Landscapes: The Impact of Urban Renewal on the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1989), 1. The report can be accessed online, at CURA’s website: http://www.cura.umn.edu/publications/catalog/c1021

4.1

nationally acclaimed architecture in either remodeled or new structures.”3 Urban renewal sought to bring a renaissance to urban cores through large-scale demolition and redevelopment – ambitious projects that were generally funded, at least in part, by the federal government. THE HOUSING ACTS OF 1949 AND 1954

During the 1920s, the value of affluent residential areas and downtown commercial districts within cities began to decline as well-to-do residents moved from the central city to the suburbs. This decline in value, referred to as “urban blight,” was often followed by the development of “slums.” In an attempt to stop the spread of blight and slums, city officials, downtown businessmen, and urban property owners advocated for series of actions they called “urban redevelopment,” including slum clearance, the replacement of old buildings, improvements to public infrastructure, and the promotion of new development in downtown areas.

The ideals of urban renewal (termed “urban redevelopment at the time) were first launched as official government policy along with the Housing Act of 1949 which provided loans and grants to municipalities for large-scale clearance of slums for public and private redevelopment.4 The goal of the legislation was to help address the decline of urban housing following the middle and upper class flight to the suburbs. As summarized by the American Planning Association, the Housing Act of 1949

“provided governance over how federal financial resources would shape the growth of American cities. Components of the legislation aimed at reducing housing costs, raising housing standards, and enabling the federal government for the first time, to aid cities in clearing slums and rebuilding blighted areas. The program emphasized new construction. In addition to improving the available housing stock, the program made open space land, neighborhood facilities, and basic water and sewer facilities eligible for federal assistance.”5

President Harry Truman issued an enthusiastic statement of support upon signing the Act into law,

“I have today approved the Housing Act of 1949. This far-reaching measure is of great significance to the welfare of the American people. It opens up the prospect of decent homes in wholesome surroundings for low-income families now living in the squalor of the slums. It equips the Federal Government, for the first time, with effective means for aiding cities in the vital task of clearing slums and rebuilding blighted areas… The task before us now is to put this legislation into operation with speed and effectiveness. .. This legislation permits us

3 Jeffrey A. Hess and Paul Clifford Larson, St. Paul’s Architecture, A History (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), 201. 4 The U.S. Housing Act of 1949 was amended in 1954, 1959, 1961, and 1965, but remained essentially the same until the passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1968. 5 American Planning Association. “Housing Act of 1949.” Web. https://www.planning.org/awards/2014/1949housingact.htm

4.2

to take a long step toward increasing the well-being and happiness of millions of our fellow citizens. Let us not delay in fulfilling that high purpose.”6

Building on this legislation, the Housing Act of 1954 replaced the term urban redevelopment with the term urban renewal. According to historian Alexander von Hoffman, this substitution indicated a shift to “a comprehensive program aimed not only at slums but also at blighted and potentially blighted areas. Instead of the simple land clearance [authorized by the Housing Act of 1949], the 1954 act called for rehabilitation and conservation of existing structures, enforcement of building codes, relocation of displaced inhabitants, and citizen participation in formulating renewal schemes.”7 Federally-funded Urban Renewal programs were continued under later housing acts. In a typical urban renewal project of the 1950s, the government would exercise its right to eminent domain and purchase large groups of parcels in city centers. The land would then be cleared of all existing development and re-parceled and sold or leased to a local government entity or approved local redevelopment agency to facilitate the completion of a pre-approved project.8 Projects varied from vast low-income housing developments such as Chicago’s infamous Cabrini- Green, to new highways that connected downtowns with the suburbs as was the case with Boston’s Fitzgerald Expressway, to sprawling surface parking lots – parking lots being the ultimate fate for some of the land that underwent urban renewal in downtown Minneapolis.9

In the 1950s, urban renewal projects were attractive to local governments as federal assistance meant a relatively small cost to local tax payers, allowed significant flexibility in project specifics and spending, and provided an “opportunity to reshape the urban environment in a ‘rational’ way” – at the time a rationally organized city was believed to have the potential to positively influence the physical health and social behaviors of citizens.10 Likewise, local business communities and developers were enthusiastic about urban renewal, though generally for more economic reasons.

Renewal depended upon interaction among the federal government, the local authority, a city government, and private developers. The federal government, through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its predecessor agencies, provided substantial loans and grants and supervised local planning and performance. Local authorities planned renewal projects, acquired and cleared land, found developers, and built and operated public housing. City

6 Harry S. Truman, “Statement by the President Upon Signing the Housing Act of 1949,” July 15, 1949. Accessed via: The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-president-upon-signing-the- housing-act-1949. 7 Alexander von Hoffman, “A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949,” Housing Policy Debate 11, no. 2 (2000),” 303. 8 Martin, 1-20; Martin Anderson, The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1949-1962, Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1964. 9 Laurel Fritz, City of Lakes Building Evaluation of Historic Significance (prepared for the City of Minneapolis, June 2015), 5; Larry Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society, 2007), 59. 10 Martin, 1.

4.3

governments found a local “in-kind” contribution for each renewal project, usually through investment in infrastructure improvements. Most of the actual redevelopment was done by private companies on land provided by the local authorities. The cost of the land was ‘written down;’ that is, the developer paid only the value of the land and not the actual cost of preparing the site, which was much higher due to building acquisition, demolition, and relocation costs.11

By the late 1960s, urban renewal was under heavy criticism nationally from academics, community activists, and residents of the effected neighborhoods, many of whom had seen their neighborhoods demolished, but not necessarily rebuilt. As opposition increased, construction activity was decreasing, with most urban renewal projects complete or stagnated by the end of the 1960s. URBAN RENEWAL IN MINNEAPOLIS

“From the start, the Twin Cities seemed to have a strong, if overly ambitious, renewal experience,” note Judith Martin and Anthony Goddard in Past Choices/Present Landscapes, their seminal work on urban renewal in Minneapolis.12 It can be argued that Minneapolis embarked upon its most visible urban renewal project – the Gateway Center Urban Renewal Project - in 1957. Over the following decade, approximately 70 acres of downtown Minneapolis in an area known since the early twentieth century as the Gateway District were razed.

Figure 4.1 The Gateway District before and after demolition. Aerial photographs from 1957 (left) and 1964 (right).

Aerial photographs WN-1T-132 (1957) and WN-2EE-101 (1964). Courtesy University of Minnesota, John R. Borchert Map Library, Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online. https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/.

11 Martin, 15, quoting Martin Anderson, The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1949-1962, Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1964. 12 Martin, 2.

4.4

The Gateway District had long been met with disapproval by many Minneapolitans. Since the last decades of the 19th Century, the area was known as a “skid row,” infamous for its flophouses, bars, nightclubs, and substantial homeless community. The former Gateway Park, located at the foot of the Hennepin Avenue Bridge drew the particular ire of the broader community; the Beaux-Arts style pavilion located in the park was commonly referred to by the unsavory name of “piss-house.”13

Figure 4.2 Gateway Park, 1939. John Vachon, courtesy of The Library of Congress.

Reforming the Gateway District had been on the minds of Minneapolis’ citizens and local government since the early 20th century, and a number of different redevelopment schemes were brought forward beginning in the late 1940s. Federal urban renewal funds were officially released for the project in 1958. Demolition of the area took until 1963, at which point approximately 200 buildings had been razed. Intensive redevelopment in the Gateway Center Urban Renewal Area continued until 1965, at which point urban renewal funding had all but dried up.14

13 Joseph Hart and Edwin C. Hirschoff, Down & Out: The Life and Death of Minneapolis’s Skid Row (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 36-50. 14 Hart, 36-50; Martin, 51-69.

4.5

Figure 4.3 Public Health Center (now City of Minneapolis Public Service Center), 1958. Photograph courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Projects within the Gateway Center represented a combination of municipal and private investment, with the city, state, and federal governments all contributing significantly through the construction of four major public buildings – the City of Minneapolis’s Public Health Building (now known as the Public Service Center) (1957, 250 South 4th Street) designed by architects Thorshov and Cerny, the Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center (1963, razed 2003, 300 Nicollet Mall) designed by McEnary, Krafft & Birch with Lang & Raugland, the State of Minnesota’s Department of Employment Security Building (now known as City of Lakes Building) (1959, 309 2nd Avenue South) designed by Thorshov and Cerny, and the U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building (now known as the Hennepin County Family Justice Center), also designed by Thorshov and Cerny (1960, 110 4th Street South). Private investment included construction of Minoru Yamasaki’s Northwestern National Life Building (1964, 20 Washington Avenue South), and Cerny and Associates’ Sheraton-Ritz Hotel (1963, razed 1990, 315 Nicollet Avenue). (See also Chapter 9, Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects.)

4.6

Figure 4.4 The Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center, designed by McEnary, Krafft & Birch with Lang & Raugland, was constructed in 1960 and razed in 2003. Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center, 1961. Robert Jacobsen, Minnesota Historical Society Collections Online.

Figure 4.5 The Northwestern National Life Building, designed by Minoru Yamasaki, was constructed in 1964. Northwestern National Life Building, 1965. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society Collections Online.

4.7

On a smaller scale, some older buildings within the Gateway Center Urban Renewal Area, such as the original Soo Line Office Building (1909, 317 Second Avenue South) designed by architect William M. Kenyon, escaped the wrecking ball, but capitulated to urban renewal’s modern aesthetic by completing renovations to their storefronts or primary façades. Façade alterations often included the introduction of additional or larger rectangular windows, low float parapet walls and architectural detailing limited to geometric designs within parapet level brickwork. Materials often included “modern” elements such as metal panels, concrete block, and large expanses of glass. This trend can be observed on commercial buildings located throughout the city as well as in downtown.

Figure 4.6 The original Soo Line Office Building (later known as the Western Union Building), 317 Second Avenue South (William M. Kenyon, original building 1909; façade modernization, architect unknown, 1962) before and after a 1962 façade modernization that simplified the building’s cornice, and storefront systems.

Left: “Office Building for the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway, Minneapolis, Minnesota, William M. Kenyon, Architect.” Photograph, The Western Architect, 14, no. 6 (1909). Right: Norton and Peel, photographers, “Western Union Building, 317-319 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis,” 1963. Minnesota Historical Society Collections.

Urban renewal projects outside of the downtown core tended toward residential development, many of them public housing projects led by the Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority (MHRA) (for a more detailed discussion of the MHRA and its projects, see Chapter 5, Residential Development, as well as the recent “Historic Context and History- Architecture Survey of Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority Developed Mid- Century High-Rise Senior Housing” prepared by New History in 2019 and available at the

4.8

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office). The MHRA constructed low-income housing for veterans, families, and seniors throughout the Modern Era. These public housing projects often covered a full city block – or more, were located in neighborhoods where urban renewal was desired by the city, or adjacent to other large government renewal projects such as highways. The MHRA’s status as a municipal agency, combined with local and national enthusiasm for Urban Renewal, provided the agency with the authority and support to condemn “blighted” properties and alter existing infrastructure to make space for its housing developments.

Figure 4.7 Urban renewal areas in Minneapolis, 1974. Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 1974. Minnesota Reflections, Minnesota Digital Library.

One non-MHRA led project was Cedar Square West (1973, 1600 South Sixth Street), designed by architect Ralph Rapson, which was constructed near the end of the Modern Era in Minneapolis. With buildings opening to residents between 1973 and 1974, Cedar Square West was funded with Title VII funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a pilot “New Towns-In Town” program that marketed itself as focused on “community

4.9 building” rather than “urban renewal.”15 Semantics aside, the 15 building campus saw redevelopment of 8.7 acres of the Cedar Riverside neighborhood.

Figure 4.8 Cedar Square West Apartments, Cedar-Riverside Area, 1975. Minnesota Historical Society.

INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS

The construction of the federally-funded, nationwide interstate system during the Modern Era dovetailed with urban renewal efforts in metropolitan areas such as the Twin Cities. Federal funding for road construction had begun in the early twentieth century, when increasing automobile use encouraged the passage of the Federal Aid Road Acts of 1916 and 1921. In Minnesota, the state’s trunk highway system, financed with a combination of federal aid, state vehicle and gas taxes, and state bonds, was also established in 1921. In addition to overseeing the state’s trunk highways, the Minnesota Department of Highways provided part of the financing for the state-aid or “secondary” road system, constructed and maintained by Minnesota counties.16

15 Title VII, the New Communities Assistance Program, is a part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970. The program was intended to guarantee bonds, debentures, and other financing of private and public new community developers and to provide other development assistance through interest loans and grants, public service grants, planning assistance, etc. 16 Richard F. Weingroff, “Federal Aid Road Act of 1916: Building the Foundation,” Public Roads 60, no. 1 (Summer 1996), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm; Joel Katz, From Footpaths to Freeways: A Survey of Roads and Highways in Minnesota (Minneapolis: Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2009), 14 - 15; Patricia Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways: Building the Twin Cities Interstate System (Minneapolis, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2006), 5 – 6, 11 – 12; Michael T. Morris, “Before the Interstate: The Minnesota Highway Department from 1921 – 1956” (master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin River Falls, 1990), 32 – 53. The thesis can be accessed online at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/library/PDF/beforeinterstate-1921to1956.pdf.

4.10

During the 1930s, when states and counties through the United States found themselves with limited funds for road construction as a result of the Great Depression, federal aid programs stepped in to fill the gap. As historian Bruce Seely notes, “the increase in the pace of road building was almost unchecked during the 1930s because highways became the largest public works program undertaken by the federal government.”17 In Minnesota, federal funds from programs managed by agencies such as the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration helped construct new trunk highways and improve existing thoroughfares. In the Twin Cities, efforts to build a circumferential highway around the metro area – Highway 100, also known as the “Beltline” – were financed in part by the Works Progress Administration (for more information on federally-funded construction in Minneapolis during the Great Depression, see Chapter 2, The Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II).18

Figure 4.9 The construction of the “Beltline” (Highway 100) around the Twin Cities was financed in part by the Works Progress Administration. Construction of the Beltline Highway (Highway 100), St. Louis Park, Minnesota, August 17, 1937. Minneapolis Star Journal, Minnesota Historical Society.

17 Bruce F. Seely, Building the American Highway System: Engineers as Policy Makers (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987), 88, quoted in Morris, “Before the Interstate,” 67. 18 Morris, “Before the Interstate,” 67 – 85; Rolf T. Anderson, “Federal Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1933 – 1941,” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, 1993, E2 – E8, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/0f6651f7-4cb5-4324-b015-53c82c6a97f2; David Gebhard and Tom Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 15 – 16; “Tour Is Made of WPA Work,” Minneapolis Tribune, May 21, 1936. Highway 100 was the first highway in Minnesota to utilize the limited access concept. See Katz, From Footpaths to Freeways, 116.

4.11

In 1938 and 1944, the federal Bureau of Public Roads and the National Interregional Highway Committee published two influential reports recommending the creation of a national system of interstate highways. The goal of this system was not only to provide connections between urban areas across the country, but to support revitalization of urban areas through the clearance of blighted areas, elimination of sub-standard housing, and alleviation of downtown congestion. By the late 1940s, increasing automobile ownership and concerns over the adequacy of existing roads for national defense added additional layers of urgency to the construction of a national interstate system. 19 The Federal-Aid Highway Acts of 1944 and 1952 authorized funds for preliminary planning, but it was not until the mid-1950s that funding was allocated for large-scale construction. The Federal Highway Act of 1956 provided $25 billion over 12 years for the construction of 41,000 miles of roads in what was termed a “National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.” Financed largely by increases in federal gas, vehicle, and tire taxes, the system was intended to accommodate traffic increases through 1975 and provide a web of transportation between a substantial number of cities with populations of at least 50,000. Each state was responsible for financing 10% of the interstate routes within its borders, with the federal government providing the remaining 90%.20

Minnesota was well-situated to take advantage of the funds made available by the 1956 federal legislation. The Minnesota Department of Highways, established in 1917, enjoyed a good relationship with the federal government, and popular support for the interstate among Minnesotans was strong at the outset of the program. In addition, the state already had several planned projects that could be quickly converted to meet the requirements of the interstate program. Between 1958 and 1976, 223 centerline miles of freeways in the seven-county Twin Cities area were opened to traffic, creating new landscapes, both physical and invisible, in the metropolitan area.21

In contrast to trunk highways, the federal interstates constructed beginning in the late 1950s utilized limited access points, bridges, and overpasses to eliminate cross traffic. Interstate capacities were three to four times greater than the capacities of highways and city roads of the same width.22 Within cities, the construction of interstates often followed a spoked-wheel layout. As noted in a historic context by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, this layout “featured outer circumferential loops and connecting Interstate highways that were typically constructed a few blocks from the main downtown area, often in under-utilized, inner-city space. Highway planners

19 Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 6 – 9; Emily Pettis, et al., NCRHP report 723, A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2012), 52 – 53; Morris, “Before the Interstate,” 101. 20 Pettis, et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 51 – 52; Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 9; George W. Barton and Associates, Freeways in Minneapolis: An Appraisal Prepared for the City of Minneapolis (Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, February 1957), 33. 21 Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 3. 22 Pettis, et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 52.

4.12 favored such routes because property values, and hence, right-of-way costs were lower, and the new routes would help move traffic away from congested urban centers.”23

By 1957, plans for new federal interstates in the Twin Cities followed this spoked-wheel configuration. An east-west route was planned from Hudson, Wisconsin to Fargo, North Dakota (I- 94), a north-south route from Albert Lea, Iowa to Duluth (I-35), and a circumferential route around the Twin Cities area that would intersect with the north-south and east-west routes (I-494 and I- 694). Given the separation of the state capital in St. Paul from the center of business in Minneapolis, I-35 would divide into separate east and west routes south of the Twin Cities and pass through each city; the east and west routes (I-35E and I-35W) would join together again north of the metro area.24

Figure 4.10 Detail of 1958 map by the American Automobile Association showing proposed interstate routes in Minnesota. Map of proposed interstate routes, 1958. American Automobile Association, “National System of Interstate and Defense Highways” (Washington, D.C.: American Automobile Association, 1958). Library of Congress.

23 Pettis, et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 52. 24 George W. Barton and Associates, Freeways in Minneapolis, 33; Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 12; “Thoughts at Random – from Editor’s Notebook,” Winona Daily News, November 15, 1968.

4.13

The first segment of federal interstate to be completed in the Twin Cities area was the portion of I-35W located in the southern suburbs of Bloomington and Richfield, which opened to traffic in 1959. The portion of the interstate that passed through Bloomington was sunken, a feature that would also be utilized on later segments of Twin Cities interstates. The overpass at West 94th Street in Bloomington was also unique, as it was the first state highway bridge in Minnesota to utilize prestressed concrete beams.25 In Minneapolis proper, construction of I-35W began in late 1959 with the demolition of buildings south of downtown, between Stevens Avenue South and Second Avenue South from Lake Street to 56th Street. In November of 1967, the entire segment of I- 35W from near Albert Lea to Minneapolis’ downtown business district (with the exception of a short bypass at Faribault) opened to the public. State highway department officials estimated that the new interstate would cut traffic time from Lyndale Avenue South and West 98th Street in Bloomington to downtown Minneapolis in half, from 30 minutes to 15 minutes.26 Increasing numbers of drivers took advantage of the new interstate, which exceeded its projected 1975 capacity of 5,900 vehicles per hour in 1969. In an attempt to resolve congestion, the Minnesota Department of Highways inaugurated innovative traffic control measures, including a traffic surveillance system, park-and-ride facilities, and a ramp meter system that used traffic lights to regulate on-ramps.27

25 Joel Katz, From Footpaths to Freeways: A Survey of Roads and Highways in Minnesota (Minneapolis: Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2009), 51 – 53. 26 “35W Should Save 15 Minutes Driving Time,” Minneapolis Star, November 28, 1967; Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 65; Martin Merrick, “State Requests Bids for Nine Highway Projects,” Minneapolis Star, September 10, 1959; “State Asks Bids on House Wrecking,” Minneapolis Star, November 24, 1959. 27 Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 65; John Greenwald, “You’ve Got a Fighting Chance to Make It Now,” Minneapolis Star, November 18, 1970.

4.14

Figure 4.11 The segment of I-35W from Albert Lea to Minneapolis’ downtown business district opened in November 1967. View of downtown Minneapolis from Interstate 35, 1968. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

Work on the central, east-west interstate proposed for the Twin Cities area, I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul, also began in 1959. The need for an expressway to provide efficient transit between the downtowns of the two cities was evident as early as 1920, when the St. Paul city engineer drafted plans for a highway to Minneapolis along St. Anthony Avenue, parallel to University Avenue. The general location of this route was favored by the Minnesota Department of Highways, which began to plan an expressway between the two cities in the 1940s; the route was approved by the St. Paul City Council in 1947. When federal funding became available in 1956, the St. Anthony Avenue course was chosen for the construction of Interstate 94. Demolition along the proposed route began in 1959, and the first two segments of I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul opened in 1964. The Minneapolis segment, one-quarter of a mile between Riverside Avenue and

4.15

Huron Boulevard, consisted primarily of a new bridge (the Dartmouth Bridge) over the Mississippi River. The new bridge featured a somewhat unusual design for Minnesota bridges - two steel box girders supporting the bridge deck (this design was replaced by plate girders and a new deck in 1997).28 A full eleven-mile segment of I-94 between Lyndale Avenue and Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis and Marion Street in St. Paul was completed in 1968. By 1970, large portions of the I- 694 and I-494 circumferential interstates around the metropolitan area had also been completed.29

Figure 4.12 The 11-mile segment of Interstate 94 from Hennepin and Lyndale Avenues in Minneapolis to Marion Street in St. Paul (including the section shown here) opened in 1968. Construction of Interstate 94 looking towards Blaisdell Avenue in Minneapolis, June 22, 1966. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

While the new interstates facilitated the smooth flow of traffic throughout urban centers in the United States, determining the locations of those interstates, and the subsequent clearance of buildings in the proposed rights-of-way, was a controversial, divisive, and often devastating process.

28 Katz, From Footpaths to Freeways, 12 – 15, 86; Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 14; Martin Merrick, “State Requests Bids for Nine Highway Projects,” Minneapolis Star, September 10, 1959; “State Asks Bids on House Wrecking,” Minneapolis Star, November 24, 1959. 29 Katz, From Footpaths to Freeways, 87; Marjorie Pearson and Charlene K. Roise, South Minneapolis: An Historic Context (prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, August 2000), 67; “Freeway to Make Twin Cities Truly Twin,” Minneapolis Star, December 8, 1968; Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 24.

4.16

As with urban renewal, the neighborhoods chosen for freeway clearance were often those of African Americans and other minorities, leading to disproportionate impacts on low-income communities of color. During the 1960s, communities across the United States generated grassroots opposition to freeway construction; however, the victories that arose out of this movement were largely limited to white middle-class or affluent communities with the necessary resources and connections.30

In Minneapolis, the construction of I-35W disrupted a thriving hub of the African American middle-class in the south section of the city. In the 1940s and 50s, when housing discrimination was common, the area around what is today the Kingfield and Bryant neighborhoods was one of the few locations where African Americans could rent or buy houses. Though the area was a hub for the African American middle class, the neighborhood was integrated, with both white and black residents. Interviews of former residents conducted by scholar Ernest Lee Lloyd suggest that African American residents of the area were not informed of the construction of the interstate in advance, and that African American houses in the area were assessed at lower values than white houses farther south. The construction of I-35W split the neighborhood, creating a physical barrier that restricted access to a neighborhood park and caused increased school segregation and school closures, and encouraged a higher concentration of African Americans to the east of the freeway.31

Another Minneapolis neighborhood impacted by freeway construction was Prospect Park. Located to the east of the Mississippi River, the neighborhood opposed the planned route of I-94 through the area, which had the potential to destroy the Prospect Field neighborhood park, remove portions of the residential Franklin and Arthur Avenues, and cut through the Glendale public housing development. Lobbying of Minnesota’s Governor Orville Freeman (a former resident of Prospect Park), pressure exerted by the neighborhood’s community organization (the Prospect Park and East River Road Association), and pressure exerted by the Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Minneapolis Park Board led to adjustments to the design. While the neighborhood organization’s suggestion to route the freeway along an existing railroad spur was not ultimately accepted, the final interstate design avoided Glendale and most of the Prospect Field park and reduced the number of houses to be demolished.32

30 Pettis, et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 52 – 53; Eric Avila, The Folklore of the Freeway: Race and Revolt in the Modernist City (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014), 1 – 4; Ernest Lee Lloyd, “How Routing an Interstate Highway Through South Minneapolis Disrupted an African American Neighborhood” (Ph. D. diss., Hamline University, 2013), 32. 31 Lloyd, “How Routing an Interstate Highway Through South Minneapolis Disrupted an African American Neighborhood,” 9, 30, 61, 62, 64, 88, 140 – 224. 32 Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 17 - 18; Martin Merrick, “Compromise on Prospect Park Leg of Freeway Approved,” Minneapolis Star, December 11, 1959; Hess Roise and Company, Prospect Park Survey Report (prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, 2001), 1, 13, 15, 27, https://www.prospectparkmpls.org/neighborhood/historic- district/pdfs/HistDistSurveyReport.pdf; Dean E. Abrahamson, ed. Under the Witch’s Hat: A Prospect Park East River Road History (Minneapolis: Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association, 2003), 110 – 117; Claire Aronson, “A Few Good Fights,” Hennepin History 54, no. 1. (Winter 1995): 14 – 17.

4.17

Figure 4.13 Beginning in the 1940s, the area roughly bounded by East 38th Street on the north, 42nd street on the south, Nicollet Avenue on the west, and Portland Avenue on the East was known as a hub of the African American middle class. This aerial image shows a section of that neighborhood in 1961, before the construction of I-35W, and in 1970, after the construction of the interstate. Aerial photograph sheet 15AC, 1961. John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota.

A final example of the interstate’s impact on the landscape and people of Minneapolis is evident in the construction of the 3.5-mile segment of I-94 between Highway 12 (now I-394) and Dowling Avenue in Near North and North Minneapolis. Though acquisitions began in the 1950s, the development of this segment of the interstate was a drawn-out process that was not complete

4.18

33 until 1981. A 1981 article in the Minneapolis Tribune noted that the freeway’s construction had “contributed to the closing of at least 156 businesses, consumed 309 acres of right-of-way and 11 acres of parkland, and eliminated more than 112 residential structures.”34 The article noted that 44 residents of the Glenwood-Lyndale and Sumner-Olson public housing projects were displaced to make way for the construction of concrete sound barriers, and that the large amount of elderly and poverty-level households in the area would likely not benefit from the freeway, as many did not own cars. 35 By 1981, the northern extension of the freeway had “changed the face of the north side, placing a clear dividing line between the business and warehouse district to the east of the freeway 36 and the residential area to the west.” In the words of Minneapolis Tribune staff writer George Jordan, “cutting the new addition to Hwy. I-94 through 6 1/8 miles of the city was like performing major surgery.”37

In the early 1970s, the environmental movement and the energy crisis had a negative impact on public attitudes towards highway construction in Minnesota. Opposition was also fostered as Twin Cities residents witnessed the negative impacts of I-94 and I-35W on local neighborhoods. New federal requirements, as well as growing public criticism of the Minnesota Highway Department, led to increased citizen involvement in highway planning. In Minneapolis, opposition to the proposed east-west Interstate 335 north of downtown resulted in the essential death of the project by the mid-1970s. Opposition began with local residents, but eventually expanded to include the Minneapolis City Council and two Congressional representatives from Minnesota. Decreased traffic forecast predictions, the energy crisis, and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (which allowed allocated funds for unbuilt interstates to be used for transit and other transportation-related projects) made the interstate less appealing to national and local government agencies and also played a role in the project’s demise. The long process of converting Highway 12 to I-394, begun in the late 1960s, also reflected increased anti-freeway sentiment present nationwide.38 BIRTH OF THE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT

A notable outcome of urban renewal was a renewed national interest in the historic preservation movement. While the book The Life and Death of Great American Cities by activist Jane Jacobs (1961) and the demolition of Penn Station in New York City became rallying points nationally, in Minneapolis it was the loss of the Metropolitan Building (1890, razed 1961, 308 Second Avenue South, E. Townsend Mix) as part of the Gateway Center Urban Renewal Project that sparked the local movement. Locally and nationally, preservationists argued that there is “intrinsic value in the

33 It appears that construction of this segment of the freeway did not begin until the late 1970s. See “Major Road Projects in the Metro Area,” Minneapolis Star, June 28, 1979. 34 George E. Jordan, “The Pro and Con of a Highway: It Means Progress, but it Splits Neighborhood Too,” Minneapolis Tribune, October 10, 1981. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 George E. Jordan, “It’s Like Major Surgery for City,” Minneapolis Tribune, October 10, 1981. 38 Cavanaugh, Politics and Freeways, 25 – 33, 44 - 50, 60 – 62.

4.19

existing fabric of [cities], and that the preservation of neighborhoods was more important than new developments.”39

At the federal level, preservation activism culminated in the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which implemented major preservation milestones including: creation of the National Register of Historic Places; formation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation – an independent federal agency, appointed by the president and under the executive branch, that advises the president and Congress on historic preservation policy; development of the “Section 106” process which ensures that historic properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation; and establishment of State Historic Preservation Offices.

Locally, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission was formed in 1972. Early designations included the Butler Brothers Company Building (1908, 518 1st Avenue North and 100/116 6th Street North, Harry Wild Jones) in 1973, the Swan Turnblad House (now known as the American Swedish Institute) (1903, 2600 Park Avenue South, Boehme and Cordella) in 1974, and the Basilica of Saint Mary (88 North 17th Street, Emmanuel Louis Masqueray) in 1975, with many more following.

The revitalized interest in preserving the past at the end of the Modern Era did not extend to all aspects and stories of American history, however. Preserved landscapes tended to memorialize white, male history, leaving out the stories of women, workers, racial minorities and others.40 This narrow perspective was fed by the prevailing attitudes towards the study of history in the mid-1960s, which focused on the actions of European American men in military and political history.41 Furthermore, an initial focus on “high style” architecture created an imbalanced perspective in the types of buildings deemed worthy of preservation.42

39 Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. 2009. 40 Andrew Hurley, Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010), 19 – 21. 41 Antoinette J. Lee, “The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Historic Preservation,” in A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 385. 42 Lawana Holland-Moore, “Ethnic Minority Heritage Values and U.S. Historic Preservation Significance Policy,” (master’s thesis, Goucher College, 2016), 32 – 33; Barry Cullingworth, "Historic Preservation in the USA," Built Environment 23, no. 2 (1997): 141, www.jstor.org/stable/23288313.

4.20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahamson, Dean E., ed. Under the Witch’s Hat: A Prospect Park East River Road History. Minneapolis, MN: Prospect Park East River Road Improvement Association, 2003.

Altschuler, Alan. The City Planning Process: A Political Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1965.

Anderson, Rolf T. “Federal Relief Programs in Minnesota, 1933 – 1941.” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. August 30, 1993. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/0f6651f7-4cb5-4324-b015-53c82c6a97f2.

Aronson, Claire. “A Few Good Fights.” Hennepin History 54, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 4 – 17.

Avila, Eric. The Folklore of the Freeway: Race and Revolt in the Modernist City. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2014.

Cavanaugh, Patricia. Politics and Freeways: Building the Twin Cities Interstate System. Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and the Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, 2006. http://www.cura.umn.edu/sites/cura.advantagelabs.com/files/publications/T2006-01.pdf.

Cullingworth, Barry. "Historic Preservation in the USA." Built Environment 23, no. 2 (1997): 137 – 143. www.jstor.org/stable/23288313.

Gebhard, David and Tom Martinson. A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.

George W. Barton and Associates. Freeways in Minneapolis: An Appraisal Prepared for the City of Minneapolis. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, February 1957.

Hess, Jeffery A. and Paul Clifford Larson. St. Paul’s Architecture: A History. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2006.

Hart, Joseph and Edwin C. Hirschoff, Down & Out: The Life and Death of Minneapolis’s Skid Row. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

Hess, Roise and Company. Prospect Park Survey Report. Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, 2001. https://www.prospectparkmpls.org/neighborhood/historic- district/pdfs/HistDistSurveyReport.pdf.

Hirschoff, Edwin C. and Joseph Hart. Down and Out: The Life and Death of Minneapolis’s Skid Row. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

Holland-Moore, Lawana. “Ethnic Minority Heritage Values and U.S. Historic Preservation Significance Policy.” Master’s thesis, Goucher College, 2016.

4.21

Hurley, Andrew. Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010.

Katz, Joel. From Footpaths to Freeways: A Survey of Roads and Highways in Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2009. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/FootpathsFreeways.pdf.

Lee, Antoinette J. “The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Historic Preservation.” In Robert E. Stipe, ed. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

Lloyd, Ernest Lee. “How Routing an Interstate Highway Through South Minneapolis Disrupted an African American Neighborhood.” Ph. D. diss., Hamline University, 2013.

Martin, Judith and Antony Goddard. Past Choices/Present Landscapes: The Impact of Urban Renewal on the Twin Cities. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1989. http://www.cura.umn.edu/publications/catalog/c1021.

Martin, Judith and David Lanegran. Where We Live: The Residential Districts of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 1983. Morris, Michael T. “Before the Interstate: The Minnesota Highway Department from 1921 – 1956.” Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin River Falls, 1990. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/library/PDF/beforeinterstate-1921to1956.pdf.

Millett, Larry. AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society, 2007.

Millett, Larry. Minnesota Modern Architecture and Life at Midcentury. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Millett, Larry. Twin Cities Then and Now. Saint Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1996.

Minneapolis Tribune

Minneapolis Star Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online via University of Minnesota Libraries. https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/

Pearson, Marjorie and Charlene K. Roise. South Minneapolis: An Historic Context. Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, August 2000.

Pettis, Emily, Amy Squitieri, Christina Slattery, Christine Long, Patti Kuhn, Debra McClane, and Sarah Groesbeck. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 723. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2012.

4.22

Preservation Design Works. Evaluation of Historic Significance – City of Lakes Building. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, 2015.

Preservation Design Works. Evaluation of Historic Significance – Public Service Center. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, 2015.

Roise, Charlene K. and Elizabeth A. Gales. Cedar Square West. National Register of Historic Places Nomination #10001090. 2010.

Truman, Harry S. “Statement of the President Upon Signing the Housing Act of 1949.” July 15, 1949. American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement- the-president-upon-signing-the-housing-act-1949.

Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. 2009. von Hoffman, Alexander. “A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949,” Housing Policy Debate 11, no. 2 (2000).

Weingroff, Richard F. “Federal Aid Road Act of 1916: Building the Foundation.” Public Roads 60, no. 1 (Summer 1996). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm.

4.23

CHAPTER FIVE

Aerial photograph HHJ-71, 1956. John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

List of Figures

Figure 5.1: Quonset huts at Buchanan Street Northeast, c. 1946. 5.3 Figure 5.2: Single family housing in Minneapolis by era of construction. 5.6 Figure 5.3: Image of Cape Cod house in plan book, 1948. 5.9 Figure 5.4: Image of Ranch house in plan book, 1960. 5.10 Figure 5.5: Aerial photographs WN-3A-026, 1940 and HHJ-71, 1956. 5.12 Figure 5.6: Malcolm M. Willey House, c. 1965. 5.15 Figure 5.7 Multi-family housing in Minneapolis by era of construction. 5.19 Figure 5.8: Sumner Field, 1946. 5.21 Figure 5.9: Rendering of Lyndale Homes high-rise and rowhouses, April 15, 1958. 5.22 Figure 5.10: 1717 Washington Street Northeast. 5.24 Figure 5.11: 1900 3rd Street Northeast, 1969. 5.25 Figure 5.12: Aerial photograph sheet 83B, 1967. 5.26

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Perhaps no other form of residential development is as closely associated with the Modern Era in the public mind as the private, single-family house. Closely tied to postwar suburbanization, the rapid construction of single-family houses following World War II was a product of government policies, economic and demographic conditions and popular ideas about the family and domestic life. Though single-family tract houses were constructed across the country during the postwar era, the experience of such houses was largely limited to members of the white, upwardly-mobile middle- class, as racist policies and practices excluded most black Americans and other minorities from home ownership in new subdivisions. While most commonly associated with suburban development, single-family houses were also constructed within the city limits of Minneapolis during the Modern Era on remaining undeveloped land at the peripheries of the city and on empty lots in developed neighborhoods. In contrast to the ubiquitous, standardized tract house, high-style, architect-designed Modernist houses were also constructed in the city.

Though the single-family home remained popular through the 1970s, a greater variety of private residential construction began to gain popularity in the 1960s. The development of multi-unit buildings, including apartments and the trendy, medium-density “cluster” housing, represented an attempt to serve demographics other than the typical middle-class suburban family, such as young singles and elderly retirees. Other multi-unit housing took the form of public housing financed by the federal government and developed in partnership with local governments. Established in the late 1930s and restarted in 1949, the public housing program initially focused on housing low-income families, then shifted its emphasis to elderly housing in the 1960s. By the mid-1960s, Minneapolis had emerged as a leader of public housing for the elderly, leaving a visible legacy of high-rise towers built for senior citizens that still dot the landscape today. PRIVATE HOUSING The Federal Housing Administration and the National Housing Act of 1934

In the United States, substantial government intervention in the development of private housing began in the 1930s.1 The collapse of the construction industry during the Great Depression brought residential construction to a standstill across the U.S. The National Housing Act of 1934, signed into law during the Great Depression, had a significant impact on single-family housing. The act was designed to stimulate the nation’s economy and construction industry while increasing private home ownership, restructuring mortgage lending, and raising the quality of housing. The act established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and authorized the FHA to insure long-term loans on

1 Gwendolyn Wright, Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981), 217 – 218.

5.1 private, single-family houses and housing developments. This insurance mitigated risk for private financial institutions, encouraging them to provide loans for this type of new construction.2

In 1934, only 44% of Americans were homeowners. The standard home mortgage required a down payment of at least 30 percent, and typically needed to be repaid within five to ten years. In contrast, the mortgage insurance provided by the FHA covered up to 80% of the value of a house, leaving a 20% down payment for the buyer; mortgages could be repaid over a period of 20 years. In 1938 and 1948, the percentage of house value insured by the FHA increased to 90% and 95% and the time period for repayment increased from 25 and 30 years, respectively, creating even greater incentives for financial institutions to provide single-family home loans.3

By the late 1930s, FHA insurance had helped to restart the private residential construction paused by the Great Depression. In Minneapolis, new residential construction had actually continued at a substantial pace through 1931. Scholars John R. Borchert, David Lanegran, David Gebhard, and Judith A. Martin note that

contrary to popular belief, the stock market crash of 1929 did not immediately affect the continued construction of housing in Minneapolis. More speculative housing was built in the city between 1929 and 1932 than had been built the previous three to four years, and many of the more important and memorable examples of single-family architect-designed houses were built during these years.4

However, by 1932 most new residential construction had ground to a halt; from 1,265 new dwelling units authorized in 1931, residential construction declined to a low of 150 units authorized in 1934. Possibly due to the impact of FHA insurance, house construction partially resumed in the late 1930s. This housing included upper-middle-class houses built on scattered lots around the City’s lakes, as well as Colonial-style homes to the south of Minnehaha Parkway and 50th Street. Residential development in Minneapolis, as elsewhere, was soon halted again by the construction restrictions imposed during World War II. During the war, the focus of new housing was government- subsidized housing for defense workers sponsored under the Lanham Act of 1940, though it does not appear that the act financed any new housing in Minneapolis during the war.5

2 Wright, Building the Dream, 240 – 241; Emily Pettis, et. al, NCRHP report 723, A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2012), 55; George Dimitri Tselos, “The Mineapolis Labor Movement in the 1930s,” (PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, 1970), 63 – 69; Roland S. Vaile, et al., Impact of the Depression on Business Activity and Real Income in Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1933), 7- 15. 3 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 56. 4 John R. Borchert, David Lanegran, David Gebhard, and Judith A. Martin, Legacy of Minneapolis: Preservation Amidst Change (Bloomington, MN: Voyageur Press, 1983), 161. 5 Wright, Building the Dream, 242; City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, The ‘50s and Minneapolis Housing Construction Trends, Housing Series No. 2, December 1959, 1 – 3; Borchert et. al, Legacy of Minneapolis, 161; Wilbur Elston, “Lanham Act Aid Over $1,600,000,” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, December 6, 1944. In Minneapolis, the number of new residential units reached a low of 30 in 1943.

5.2

The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944

Following the war, demand for housing across the country skyrocketed, as returning veterans and newly married couples looked for places to live.6 In Minneapolis, the shortage led Mayor Hubert Humphrey to organize the relocation of surplus government-owned trailers from Ohio to north Minneapolis and to obtain over 400 trailers, prefabricated houses, metal barracks, and Quonset huts for veterans studying at the University of Minnesota and their families.7

Figure 5.1 After World War II, temporary housing such as this group of Quonset huts was constructed in the Twin Cities to house returning veterans and their families. Quonset huts at Buchanan Street Northeast, c. 1946. Minnesota Historical Society. The passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (known as the G. I. Bill), administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), was intended to provide financing for veterans looking to purchase a home. Though it did not solve the shortage of affordable housing, the act allowed veterans to receive loans to cover 100% of the cost of a house. No down payments were required. The VA program followed many of the guidelines established by the FHA for property assessment and loan approval.8

Together, the FHA and VA programs underwrote extensive residential development during the postwar era. In Minneapolis and across the nation, the VA program was most popular in the years

6 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 59 – 60; Wright, Building the Dream, 242. 7 Gary W. Reichard, “Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey,” Minnesota History 56, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 56 – 58; Larry Millett, Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 9. 8 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 56.

5.3

immediately following World War II. The impact of the FHA program was more long-term, demonstrated by the fact that between 1934 and 1970, 25% of all new housing starts in the United States utilized an FHA mortgage.9 The FHA and VA programs encouraged the construction of new single-family houses, rather than rehabilitation of existing houses, and the methods of neighborhood assessment utilized by these agencies favored new suburban developments over older urban areas. Later revisions and additions to the FHA’s programs in the 1950s continued these policies, and the federal government continued to stimulate residential development through amendments to federal housing acts through the 1950s and 60s, including legislation that encouraged the development of large-scale subdivisions.10 The Postwar Housing Boom

Government policies were a major, but not the only, factor in stimulating postwar residential development. The economic conditions created by the removal of wartime construction and consumption restrictions, private savings accumulated during the war, and favorable employment rates, combined with the overwhelming demand for new housing by returning veterans and their families, created a favorable environment for the construction of new housing after World War II. The housing boom was also fueled by the expansion of the middle class, increase in real household income, and culture of consumption fostered during the postwar era. Between 1945 and 1950, residential construction increased from one to six percent of the Gross National Product (GNP), and remained high through about 1960. Though the boom tapered off during the 1960s, a second wave of increased residential construction occurred between 1971 and 1973, at the end of the Modern Era.11

The impact of postwar economic and demographic conditions, as well as the financing opportunities presented by the FHA and VA mortgage insurance programs, can be seen in Minneapolis. When compared to the conditions in other American cities, the housing boom in the Twin Cities was slightly delayed. Residential building in the city began to increase at the end of World War II, and, with a couple of minor setbacks, continued to increase to a high point of 2,900 new dwelling units authorized in 1950. In the Twin Cities and surrounding region, the amount of housing nearly doubled between 1940 and 1960, leading to large-scale growth of the entire metropolitan area.12

The location of most postwar residential development in outlying areas was connected to the movement of jobs and commerce to suburban areas during the Modern Era, as well as the low cost

9 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 56 – 58; Rebecca Lou Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective: A Twin Cities Case Study, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, Publication No. CURA 78-4 ([Minneapolis, MN?]: 1978), 15 – 17. 10 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 57. 11 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 58 – 64; Wright, Building the Dream, 218, 248. 12 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, The ‘50s and Minneapolis Housing Construction Trends, 1 - 3; Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 15 – 17.

5.4

of peripheral land. In addition, the rise of automobile culture and state and federal investment in new highway development enabled Americans to commute to work in locations farther from their residences. The suburbs were perceived as the ideal location for raising a family, an alternative to the physical and spiritual dangers of urban life that was now open not only to members of the upper- middle class but to those in lower economic brackets.13 In addition to new suburban subdivisions, postwar builders and developers constructed single-family houses on infill lots in already-platted subdivisions within established cities, often on empty lots or developed lots with room for a second house. Some development also occurred in exurban areas, on land purchased from farmers.14

By the beginning of the postwar housing boom in the late 1940s, most of the land within the city limits of Minneapolis had already been developed. The few open areas of the City that remained were located at its far northern and southern edges, as well as in small patches along the eastern and western city limits and in south-central Minneapolis above a former swamp; and even these open locations contained some houses from the early twentieth century. In the immediate postwar era, the Twin Cities freeway system was not yet constructed, and employment remained concentrated in the central cities; thus, these zones within the city limits represented the logical choice for immediate development during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Flat land within these zones was developed first with smaller houses, followed by areas of more uneven topography with larger houses.15 Infill of vacant lots also occurred throughout the City during the postwar era.16 Between 1950 and September of 1959, 8,746 new single-family dwelling units were constructed in Minneapolis. Most of these were built during the early 1950s; in 1959 single-family dwelling units represented 60% of the total new dwelling units constructed during the decade.17

13 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 50 – 64; Wright, Building the Dream, 218, 248; Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 10 – 13. 14 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 64. 15 Judith A. Martin and David A. Lanegran, Where We Live: The Residential Districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 5, 124 – 129. 16 Borchert et. al, Legacy of Minneapolis, 162. 17 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, The ‘50s and Minneapolis Housing Construction Trends, iv – v. The proportion of single-family housing to apartments and duplexes remained relatively the same between 1950 and 1959; 44.3% and 45.6%, respectively.

5.5

Figure 5.2 Heat map showing concentrations of new single-family housing constructed during the Modern Era Denser clusters are represented by darker colors on the map, while lighter colors indicate a sparser distribution. Map developed by Visible City, 2020.

5.6

New single-family home construction in Minneapolis, however, was far exceeded by new construction in suburban areas. In 1956, new dwelling units constructed in the Twin Cities Standard Metropolitan Area outnumbered new Minneapolis units fourteen to one.18 Most postwar construction in the metropolitan area occurred in the first-tier suburbs adjacent to Minneapolis and St. Paul proper.19 Once available land in Minneapolis had been filled, new single-family housing construction within the city began to decline, steadily decreasing through the end of the 1950s.20

Subdivisions and Tract Houses

Across the country, the designs of new residential subdivisions were influenced by local zoning ordinances as well as by guidelines established by the FHA and organizations such as the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). Developers found it profitable to follow the guidelines established by these agencies and organizations, resulting in standardization of lot sizes, setbacks, circulation patterns, and building forms across the country (though topography, vegetation, and building materials varied from region to region).21 Design recommendations for new subdivisions included the incorporation of curvilinear streets, lot shapes that took advantage of existing topography, space, and natural features, and adequate sidewalks and streets designed to limit and calm traffic. Distance to transportation corridors and ensuring access to amenities such as shopping centers, churches, and schools was also a factor in site selection and development. Often, developers themselves provided or set aside land for amenities like parks and recreation centers.22

In the Twin Cities area, a typical residential subdivision consisted of three to five blocks developed by a single home builder over one to two years. These developments typically featured rectangular gridiron layouts, rather than curved streets, with builders developing streets and utilities and planting trees in addition to constructing houses. Larger developments of 150 – 250 houses were common by 1953 and 1954, but were not as extensive and did not include the commercial facilities and public services of some other developments constructed across the country during the postwar era.23 The Twin Cities had few large-scale builders. Most constructed between 6 and 20 houses per year, and several built between 50 and 100 houses annually. Few builders exceeded the production of the local Orrin Thompson Company, which built 400 homes per year by the early 1950s.24

18 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, The ‘50s and Minneapolis Housing Construction Trends, 15 – 16. The Standard Metropolitan Area consisted of the Twin Cities and the surrounding five county suburban area. 19 Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 17 – 21. 20 Minneapolis Community Planning and Management Team, Population and Housing Summary of Minneapolis ([Minneapolis, MN?]: [Minneapolis Planning and Development?], c. 1970), 1.2. 21 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 65, 72 - 79, 22 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 73 – 79. 23 Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 21 – 22. 24 Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 21.

5.7

Materials and designs for single-family tract homes constructed in such subdivisions were influenced by a number of factors. Increased marriage and birth rates meant that the postwar American suburbs were most commonly inhabited by low-middle-class, young white couples with young children. Houses were designed not only to create efficiency and cost savings for builders, but to accommodate popular ideas about gender roles and family living, and to accommodate the desires and practical needs of consumer families.25

According to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s Report 723: A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing,

The majority of homes constructed during the 1940s through 1970s displayed the popular architectural forms and styles of the period, resulting in a similar appearance regardless of their location. This uniformity was a result of close adherence to FHA guidelines by local and regional builders, the ready availability of standardized building materials, and the influence of plan books and national distributed magazines that promoted the architectural styles of the era. As a result, with the exception of regional variations in materials and setting, Minimal Traditional, Ranch, and Split-level homes built across the country looked alike.26

In general, the design of postwar housing can be roughly divided into two periods of development. The first era of development, which continued through the mid-1950s, was based on FHA guidelines for the “small house” developed in the 1920s and 30s. These compact homes often featured traditional exterior designs with modern interiors, including modern systems and equipment. Features such as a lack of interior partitions, floor-length windows, skylights, and open ceilings, and built-ins and storage walls were utilized to maximize limited space. Homes constructed during the early postwar era generally featured two-zone designs, meaning that space was divided into private and public zones.27

25 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 60 – 61, 71; Wright, Building the Dream, 250 – 253; James A. Jacobs, Detached America: Building Houses in Postwar Suburbia (Charlottesville VA: University of Virginia Press, 2015), 3 – 5; Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 13. 26 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 90. 27 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 91 – 94; Jacobs, Detached America, 3 – 7.

5.8

Figure 5.3 During the immediate postwar era, small, compact houses such as the Cape Cod shown above were constructed in suburban subdivisions. Image of Cape Cod house in plan book, 1948. Montross Lumber Company. Selected Small Homes: Designs and Plans for Small Homes, 8th ed. St. Paul, MN: Brown-Blodgett, Inc., 1948. As family sizes and incomes increased, demand for larger houses increased. In the mid-1950s, the one-story Ranch house and other types of houses that accommodated larger layouts (such as the split-level, split-foyer, and bi-level) became predominant. Placed on larger suburban lots, Ranch houses featured an open floor plan that allowed for easy visible supervision of children and connected interior and outdoor spaces with large picture windows and sliding glass doors. As in earlier housing styles, private and public zones were separated from each other; however, these larger houses also accommodated the new casual lifestyle of the middle class by adding a third zone for informal family living space.28

Common features of the postwar house included backyard patios (which replaced historic front porches), the utility room (an alternative to the traditional basement), the family room (typical by the 1960s), and kitchen designs that provided an efficient layout, sufficient lighting, and modern amenities.29 Garages and carports became integral parts of single-family houses beginning in late

28 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 91 – 94; Jacobs, Detached America, 3 -7; Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 9. 29 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 94 - 97; Wright, Building the Dream, 255.

5.9

1930s. During the Cold War, as Americans worried about the threat of nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, some families constructed bomb shelters in yards and basements, underneath house additions, or beneath garages and sheds.30

Figure 5.4 Beginning in the mid-1950s, larger houses such as this Ranch house accommodated the casual lifestyle of the middle-class family. Image of Ranch house in plan book, 1960. Weyerhaeuser Co. 5 and 6 Room Homes. 1960. In general, single-family houses constructed during the postwar era can be classified into several forms.31 The one-story Minimal Traditional (and its variation, the one and one-half-story Cape Cod) was most popular during the late 1940s and early 1950s. The one-story Transitional Ranch spanned the transition to larger home styles in the mid-1950s. From the mid-1950s on, the Ranch, the Split-level and the Split-foyer were common housing types. In the Midwest, the Cape Cod variation of the Minimal Traditional form, the Raised Ranch variation, and the Split-foyer form were especially popular. To these forms, a variety of architectural styles were applied: Colonial Revival (especially popular in the Midwest), the Storybook style, Spanish Colonial Revival, Asiatic,

30 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 118 – 122; James C. Massey and Shirley Maxwell, The Recent Past: Strategies for Evaluation (Prepared for the National Preservation Institute, May 2017), 97 – 103. Common bomb shelter materials included concrete and prefabricated metal units. Between 1949 and 1962, about 200,000 shelters were constructed in the U.S. 31 It is most logical to categorize single-family homes constructed during the postwar era by form rather than style, given that American home buyers were more concerned with modern spatial layouts than with architectural style, and multiple architectural styles were often utilized on a single building form. Jacobs, Detached America, 13 – 15.

5.10

Contemporary, and Shed.32 More uncommon forms and styles constructed during the 1950s – 1970s included A-frame, Neo-Mansard, and Earthen houses.33 Prefabricated houses were also constructed, with over 800,000 built between 1945 and 1960. Many of these were built in the upper Midwest suburbs, such as the prefabricated steel Lustron Houses at 5009, 5015, 5021, 5027, 5047, and 5055 Nicollet Avenue (1949).34 Materials developed and improved upon during the Great Depression and World War II, including aluminum, high-strength weathering steel, concrete block, simulated stone, fiberboard, plywood, glass block, fiberglass, and plastics were utilized on postwar houses, though older materials, such as stucco, shingle siding, and asbestos continued to be used as well. In contrast to the traditional method of balloon-framing construction, wood and steel panel construction became popular.35

Many of these national patterns of postwar tract housing design and construction were replicated in Minneapolis. In the 1940s and 50s, small-scale builders constructed small, single-family homes in Cape Cod and Ranch forms. Beginning in the late 1950s, custom contractors turned their attention to larger, more expensive houses in split-level, Ranch, and two-story forms. Some of these more expensive houses were constructed around Grass Lake at the south edge of the city and East River Road.36

One example of a postwar subdivision developed in Minneapolis is the Kenny Neighborhood in the south section of the City. At the end of World War II, the area featured some houses constructed during the 1910s and 1930s, but most of it remained open field. During the early 1950s, small builders developed the area, improving three or four lots at a time through the late 1950s.37 In other areas of the City, such as the Camden neighborhood of north Minneapolis, individual vacant lots were infilled with new construction.38 A subdivision developed slightly later was a 44-acre section of land between Dowling Elementary School and the Lower Campus of Minnehaha Academy, along West River Road in South Minneapolis. The University of Minnesota, which had acquired the tract of land in the 1920s, sold the land to the Marvin Anderson Company, a suburban housing builder, in 1959. During the 1960s, the area was subdivided, with streets named after buildings on the

32 Wright, Building the Dream, 251; Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 99 – 119. 33 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 99 – 119; Wright, Building the Dream, 251. For a complete typology of postwar single-family housing, see Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluation the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. 34 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 79, 88 – 90; Wright, Building the Dream, 244 – 245; Minnesota Modern Registry,” Docomomo-us-mn.org, accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html; Larry Millett, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 235 – 236. 35 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 79, 90. 36 Martin and Lanegran, Where We Live, 124 – 129; Borchert et al., Legacy of Minneapolis, 97; Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 23 – 25. 37 Martin and Lanegran, Where We Live, 139. 38 Smith, Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective, 22.

5.11

University of Minnesota’s campus, and Modern-style houses were constructed on the site.39 The neighborhoods of Waite Park and Lind-Bohanon in North and Northeast Minneapolis and Fulton, Armatage, Diamond Lake, and Wenonah in Far South Minneapolis also experienced postwar single- family residential development.40

39 Martin and Lanegran, Where We Live, 138 – 139. 40 Martin and Lanegran, Where We Live, 125 – 129.

5.12

Figure 5.5 The Kenny neighborhood near the south border of Minneapolis was developed with single- family homes during the 1950s. Aerial photographs WN-3A-026, 1940 and HHJ-71, 1956. John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota. During the postwar era, government policies, the practices of builders, developers, and real estate agents, and racist attitudes reinforced segregated housing patterns and housing discrimination aimed at non-white populations. Protective covenants, incorporated into property deeds for houses in residential subdivisions since the 1920s to exclude potential residents based on race and religion, were initially endorsed by the FHA as a means of promoting racial homogeneity. In part, the FHA based its assessment of the economic stability of neighborhoods on racial composition. The FHA perceived racial integration as a threat to stable property values, and declined to issue mortgage insurance for houses in racially-integrated neighborhoods. While the FHA removed its recommendations for restrictive covenants after a 1948 Supreme Court ruling (Shelly v. Kramer) found these covenants unenforceable, in practice FHA mortgage insurance continued to be awarded to segregated, largely white neighborhoods, and developers found it profitable to continue the practice of denying leases and purchases to minorities. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s brought about passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which outlawed discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. By this time, however, the suburbs were almost entirely populated by white families, while the proportion of residents of color in the central cities had increased.41

This pattern of housing segregation held true in Minneapolis. Housing segregation in the city had begun long before the Modern Era; by the early 1900s, neighborhood covenants and unethical realtor practices had contributed to the concentration of black American populations in certain areas of the city.42 This pattern of segregation was slow to change. During the postwar era black Americans were excluded from new suburban developments and likely from new areas of housing within the city limits. In 1946, a housing survey completed by the Governor’s Interracial Commission noted that approximately 50% of black American dwelling units in the Twin Cities were concentrated in black American neighborhoods; only 17% were located in “mixed” neighborhoods. Furthermore, when compared to all housing surveyed, black American houses were much more likely to be in poor condition. A statewide poll by the Minnesota Poll that same year indicated the prevalence of racist attitudes amongst the state’s white residents, revealing that 60% of all Minnesotans believed that black Americans should not be allowed to move into any residential neighborhood where there was a vacancy; 64% believed the presence of a black American neighbor

41 Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 55 – 56, 61, 62, 65 – 66; Massey and Maxwell, The Recent Past, 30 – 32, 92 – 94; Wright, Building the Dream, 247; Jacobs, Detached America, 2 – 12, 68 – 76. 42 National Register of Historic Places, Lee, Arthur and Edith, House, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination # 14000391, Section 8, p. 21, https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/14000391.pdf; Kevin Ehman-Solberg, “Historic African American Population in Minneapolis, 1910,” map, 2017, Mapping Prejudice Project, https://www.mappingprejudice.org/what-are-covenants/index.html#matter.

5.13

would lower the value of their home.43 A statement issued by a member of a desegregation movement in Minneapolis in 1961 noted that “Minneapolis suburbs have increased (in population) 114.9 per cent [between 1953 and 1961], but Negroes, with isolated exceptions, have been unable to participate in this suburban growth.”44 As late as the mid-1960s, the locations of black American residences largely replicated patterns present in the mid-1920s, suggesting that black Americans were also unable to move into new residential subdivisions within city limits.45 The general pattern of white exodus from the central city was also visible in Minneapolis; between 1960 and 1970, white residents left Minneapolis as the amount of black American and Native American residents doubled and tripled, respectively.46 High-Style Modern Houses

Few postwar tract houses featured Modern-style architecture, as the FHA believed that conspicuously modern designs were too faddish to bring a good return on investment. In addition, merchant builders tended to employ draftsmen or building designs, utilize plan books, or purchase pre-drawn plans rather than contract with architects for unique Modern designs.47 In the Twin Cities, architect-designed Modern houses first appeared in the late 1930s. Examples include the Winston and Elizabeth Close designed Lippincott House (1938, 252 Bedford Street Southeast) and the Frank Lloyd Wright designed Malcolm M. Willey House (1934, 255 Bedford Street Southeast). After World War II, more Modern architect-designed houses were built in Minneapolis by Modernist architects such as Carl Graffunder and Norman Nagle, notably in southwestern Minneapolis, along Minnehaha Creek, and in the Lowry Hill neighborhood.48 In contrast to postwar tract housing developed on open, flat land, these more expensive homes were often located in areas with natural landscape features and situated as infill in older, established neighborhoods.49

43 Earl Spangler, The Negro in Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: T. S. Denison & Company, Inc., 1961), 129 – 133, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b538878&view=1up&seq=8. 44 Willmar Thorkelson, “Protestants Seek End to Segregated Housing,” Minneapolis Star, January 11, 1961. 45 Bob Lundegaard, “Negro Housing Pattern Study Edited, Filed,” Minneapolis Tribune, September 23, 1966. 46 Minneapolis Community Planning and Management Team, Population and Housing Summary of Minneapolis, 2.1 – 2.6. 47 Wright, Building the Dream, 251; Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing, 97 – 98, 112. 48 Millett, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, 163; David Gebhard and Tom Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 20; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 17, 310, 318. 49 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 284.

5.14

Figure 5.6 The Malcolm M. Willey House at 255 Bedford Street, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, was one of the first Modernist-style houses in Minneapolis. Malcolm M. Willey House, c. 1965. Minnesota Historical Society.

Architectural historian Larry Millett describes the high-style Modernist houses constructed in Minnesota during the mid-twentieth century this way:

In place of the formal, historically themed homes of old, midcentury architects conjured up houses featuring dramatic walls of windows, open floor plans, extensive use of new materials such as aluminum and plastic, and flat or low-slung roofs instead of the traditional peaked variety.50

The external forms of the these high-style Modernist houses designed by Minnesota’s architects varied widely, from flat-roofed boxes such as the Joseph and Florence Leighton House (1955, 1722 Oliver Avenue South) and neighbors the Ray and Kay Price House (4730 Coffey Lane, Ralph

50 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 283.

5.15

Rapson, 1960) and the Frederick Lange House (4736 Coffey Lane, Herb Fritz, 1960) to houses with floating canopies and curved Space Age features.51 Multi-Unit Housing:

During the 1960s, changes in government policy, a renewed interest in urban living, and the housing needs of demographics other than the young, middle-class family began to bring about a greater variety of residential development, including multi-family housing in urban areas.

An attempt by the federal government to incentivize the construction of new, private, multi-family housing in urban areas occurred in the late 1940s with the passage of the Housing Act of 1949. The incentives provided by Section 608 of the Act for the construction of urban apartments led to the construction of 711,000 units backed by FHA insurance over the course of eight years. However, the extreme profits realized by builders under this system led the federal government to impose stringent restrictions in the late 1950s, ending the program’s popularity and reinforcing the trend towards the construction of single-family houses in suburbs.52

Historian Gwendolyn Wright notes that “the suburban boom of the 1950s and 1960s masked the fact that not all housing demand was being satisfied. Many people – childless couples, urbanites, ethnic families, the poor who could not afford homeownership – wanted some alternative to suburban sprawl.”53 Beginning in the early 1960s and continuing through the late 1970s, builders began to respond to the demand for other housing types. This was partially a response to the financial realities of new suburban construction, as it had become more difficult to obtain large amounts of land at an economical cost. It was also a response to a new cultural perspective that viewed urban living, with its cultural diversity and social contacts, in a more positive light.54

An important development type that emerged out of these changes was cluster housing. In this type of medium-density, multi-family housing, apartments or townhouses (many designed by architects) were placed close together on a site, with the rest of the site landscaped for public use. Local governments incentivized cluster housing by providing special zoning privileges to large-scale developers who constructed these types of developments, which came to be known as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).55 Wright notes that “by the mid-1960s, builders in many metropolitan areas put up more multifamily houses than single-family residences.”56 By the end of the 1960s,

51 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 284, 321. 52 Wright, Building the Dream, 246 – 247. 53 Wright, Building the Dream, 258. 54 Wright, Building the Dream, 258 - 259; Pettis et al., A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post- World War II Housing, 68. 55 Wright, Building the Dream, 259 – 260. 56 Wright, Building the Dream, 270.

5.16

apartments, townhomes, condominiums, and other housing types designed for young singles, empty-nesters, and the retired elderly were more readily available.57

In Minneapolis, apartments and duplexes continued to be constructed during the postwar housing boom of the 1950s, though in much lower numbers than single family homes. This was reversed in the late 1950s, which saw an increase in apartment building construction. According to a 1959 publication produced by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, increased apartment construction was due to several factors: 1) a scarcity of available land (98% of the city was developed by 1959); 2) the increasing cost of land acquisition and site improvement, which made apartment construction more economical; and 3) the fact that Minneapolis entered the postwar era with fewer apartments than the number present in cities of comparable size. The 1959 report predicted that apartment construction would continue to increase to meet the housing needs of university students, increased numbers of young couples (as individuals born during the baby boom reached maturity), increased numbers of individuals displaced by urban renewal and freeway construction, and increased numbers of elderly residents. 58 This prediction seems to have been borne out, as the 1960s saw large increases in the number of dwelling units within multi-unit buildings – 29,491 units in 1960 compared to 43,273 units in 1970. This represented an increase from 17% of the city’s housing stock to 26%, and corresponded to an increase in the city’s population of young adults and elderly individuals.59

Scholars David Lanegran and Judith Martin note that “the apartment boom of the late 1960s never really took hold in Minneapolis because districts here were almost completely built up by the late 1950s,” but acknowledge that during the 1960s some apartment buildings were constructed by the University of Minnesota and in the Whittier area of South Minneapolis.60 A 1971 report by the Citizens League noted that by 1971, older single-family houses in Minneapolis were being replaced with two-and-one-half and three-story walk-up apartments, with efficiency and one-bedroom units, constructed on land ranging in size from two lots to a half-block.61 Minneapolis apartments constructed between the late 1950s and early 1970s appear to have been fairly utilitarian, though some more highly-designed buildings were designed by the Minneapolis firm of Liebenberg and Kaplan. These included the Calhoun Terrace Apartments (1959, 2893 Knox Avenue South) and the Hennepin Aristocrat (1961, 3332 Hennepin Avenue).62 The 1960s also witnessed the

57 Wright, Building the Dream, 270: Jones, Detached America, 11 – 13. 58 City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, The ‘50s and Minneapolis Housing Construction Trends, 2 – 3, 7 – 8. 59 Minneapolis Community Planning and Management Team, Population and Housing Summary of Minneapolis, 1.2; Ronald Abler, John S. Adams, and John R. Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976), 33. 60 Lanegran and Martin, Where We Live, 5, 130. 61 Citizens League Committee on Land for Housing, Better Use of Land and Housing: A Modest Proposal for a New Public Role in the Re-Building of the Older Neighborhoods of the Twin Cities Area (Prepared by the Citizens League Committee on Land for Housing, April 30, 1971), iii, 3. 62 Borchert et. al, Legacy of Minneapolis, 145; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 296.

5.17 construction of the Twin Cities’ first high-rise apartment buildings, such as the River Towers Condominiums (1964, 15 – 19 First Street South). By 1971, Minneapolis maintained a PUD ordinance, but PUD or cluster housing development appears to have been rather limited within the city, with only four such developments utilizing the city’s PUD ordinance prior to 1971.63

63 Citizens League Committee on Land for Housing, Better Use of Land and Housing, 20; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 297 – 298.

5.18

Figure 5.7 Heat map showing concentrations of multifamily housing constructed during the Modern Era. Denser clusters are represented by darker colors on the map, while lighter colors indicate a sparser distribution. Map developed by Visible City, 2020.

5.19

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

In addition to developments in the field of private housing, the Modern Era witnessed the development and growth of the federal government’s public housing program and other methods of subsidizing low-income housing. In Minneapolis, the construction of housing developments for low-income elderly individuals was especially notable, and resulted in a series of high-density apartment buildings built throughout the city between 1959 and 1974. Origins of the Federal Public Housing Program:

The first substantial public housing program subsidized by the federal government began during the Great Depression with the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. In an attempt to generate work for unemployed Americans, the Act established the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (PWA) and authorized it to finance the development of low-cost housing and clearance of poor urban districts perceived as “slums.” Between 1934 and the fall of 1937, 51 such projects were built or under construction nationally. These included Sumner Field (1938, razed 1998, north Minneapolis), Minnesota’s first and only PWA-funded public housing project constructed in north Minneapolis between 1937 and 1938.64

64 Unless otherwise cited, the following information on public housing in Minneapolis has been adapted from the authors’ context study. Tamara Halvorsen Ludt, Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority Developed Mid-Century High-Rise Senior Housing (Prepared for the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, June 2019).

5.20

Figure 5.8 Sumner Field, constructed in 1937 – 1938, was Minneapolis’ only PWA-developed public housing project. Sumner Field, 1946. Placeography.org and the Minnesota Historical Society.

The United States Housing Act of 1937 established the basic federally-subsidized but locally- operated public housing program that would operate throughout the Modern Era. Under this program, local public housing authorities (PHAs) established by state legislation would plan, design, construct, and manage public housing projects financed by the United States Housing Authority (USHA) within the Department of the Interior. Initial construction was substantial (100,000 new public housing units by 1942) but short-lived, as Congress declined to extend funding past 1939. The Housing Act of 1949 restarted this housing program, linking it to a formal program of federally-subsidized redevelopment of urban areas known as Urban Redevelopment or Urban Renewal. The 1949 legislation required that for each new unit of low-income housing constructed, one unit of deteriorated “slum” housing be razed or renovated, and required that local PHAs prioritize potential tenants who had been displaced by Urban Renewal for placement in new public housing projects (for more on Urban Renewal, see Chapter 4). The program was operated by the

5.21

Public Housing Administration, a descendant of the USHA. (Later, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, would assume management of the public housing program).

In Minneapolis, the local PHA – the Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority (MHRA) was created by an act of the state legislature in 1947. The MHRA’s first federally-funded public housing project was Glen-Dale (1952, Prospect Park neighborhood), a collection of two-story townhomes constructed in the Prospect Park neighborhood of Minneapolis in 1952. Designed for low-income veterans and their families, the project featured a low-rise design that resembled the designs of earlier public housing. In the 1950s, these low-rises were common for public housing constructed in smaller cities across the U.S. In the late 1950s, it was followed by the low-income family developments of Glenwood, Olson and Lyndale Homes in the Near North area of Minneapolis. Both Glenwood and Lyndale Homes were located in the Glenwood Redevelopment Area, one of Minneapolis’ first federally-assisted Urban Renewal projects. All projects consisted mainly of low-rise townhomes primarily intended for low-income families. However, Olson Homes also contained two, 12-story apartment buildings, and Lyndale Homes contained one, 12-story apartment building, the Lyndale Homes High-Rise (1959, 800 5th Avenue North). These high-rise buildings represented a shift towards higher-density construction in the MHRA’s public housing projects.65

Figure 5.9 The Lyndale Homes high-rise, visible in the background, was the MHRA’s first high-rise apartment building constructed specifically for elderly individuals. Rendering of Lyndale Homes high-rise and rowhouses, April 15, 1958. Minneapolis Star, April 15, 1958.

65 Charlene Roise and Rachel Peterson, Glendale Townhomes: An Assessment of National Register Eligibility (prepared for LHB, August 2015), 2 – 15; Alexander von Hoffman, “A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949,” Housing Policy Debate 11, no. 2 (2000): 312.

5.22

Lyndale Homes was also notable as the MHRA’s first public housing project designed specifically for elderly individuals. During the mid-twentieth century, a rise in the proportion of elderly American citizens, a growing interest in the field of aging, and the displacement of older inner-city residents by programs of Urban Renewal led to the development of public housing designed specifically for the elderly. Prior to 1956, unmarried elderly individuals were excluded from public housing. The Housing Act of 1956 not only allowed unmarried individuals over 65 to occupy public housing projects, but also increased construction allowances for units designated for senior occupants, allowing local PHAs to include design features such as handrail and ramps. The Housing Act of 1961 added to this program by providing a $10 per month rent subsidy for elderly units and increasing the unit cost limits to $3,250 per unit (in contrast to $2,750 per family units).

In addition to increased federal funding, local PHAs had other incentives to pursue elderly public housing. In contrast to the community opposition generated by the development of minority- dominated, low-income family housing in white neighborhoods, housing for the elderly served a predominately white population and was relatively non-controversial. Common perceptions of the elderly as hard-working, honest, quiet, and orderly individuals trapped in economic circumstances beyond their control also increased support for this program. In Minneapolis, initial opposition to the program based on the cost and locations of sites appears to have faded quickly, as the city’s residents realized the benefits of public housing for their aging parents, and some city council members found a new political base in the senior citizens living at these developments. In addition to providing housing, the projects were used by the MHRA to achieve its broader development and economic goals, including Urban Renewal.

Between 1959 and 1974, the MHRA constructed approximately 4,856 units of low-income public housing for the elderly in 39 high-density buildings located primarily in North, Northeast, and South Minneapolis. Though the MHRA briefly experimented with low-density designs in its Golden Age Homes (1961, razed, north Minneapolis), six, one-story buildings constructed adjacent to Sumner Field in 1961, it ultimately rejected the concept in favor of high-density apartment buildings.

5.23

Figure 5.10 1717 Washington Street Northeast is an example of a high-rise apartment building constructed by the MHRA for elderly individuals. 1717 Washington Street Northeast, no date. Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Collection, Hennepin County Library.

These high-density buildings took three basic forms. The majority consisted of high-rise towers between seven and 25 stories in height. Most, such as the MHRA high-rise apartment building at 1717 Washington Street Northeast (1971) were constructed as single-building projects, but the MHRA also developed four, campus-sized projects, each with between two and four high-rise towers. One example is the Hiawatha Tower Apartments (1964, 2121 16th Avenue South). The second form - the small, neighborhood-scale, four- to five-story apartment building – was constructed during the early to mid-1960s. Examples include the MHRA neighborhood-scale apartment building at 1900 3rd Street Northeast (1967) and the Dickman Park Apartments at 710 2nd Street Northeast (1963). Finally, two of the MHRA’s later projects utilized a form termed the “horizontal high-rise.” These shorter, three to six-story buildings with a large footprint included the MHRA horizontal high-rise apartment building 1314 44th Avenue North (1971) and the MHRA horizontal high-rise apartment building at 600 18th Avenue North (1970).

5.24

Figure 5.11 1900 3rd Street Northeast, constructed in 1967, is typical of the neighborhood-scale apartment buildings constructed by the MHRA. 1900 3rd Street Northeast, 1969. Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Collection, Hennepin County Library.

In keeping with the design aesthetic of the mid-twentieth century, buildings typically featured Modern-style architecture which lacked traditional ornamentation and achieved visual interest through the manipulation of geometric volumes and variation in depth of façade elements. Common modern design elements included cantilevered upper levels; ribbon windows; projecting or recessed balconies, window bays, and pilaster-like elements. Community space, a widely touted feature of all projects, was included either within the footprint of the apartment building or as a lower-scale wing. Site landscaping and/or outdoor recreational spaces were also key features of the housing projects; trees, vegetation, patios, plazas, circulation networks, and on-site parking lots were common features. Most projects were designed by local architects, including such well-known names as Carl Graffunder; Robert Thorshov; Robert Cerny; Larson and McLaren; Lang, Raugland and Brunet; and Liebenberg, Kaplan, and Glotter.

5.25

Figure 5.12 Site landscaping is evident in this aerial photograph of the Hiawatha Tower Apartments, constructed in 1964. Aerial photograph sheet 83B, 1967. Chicago Aerial Survey. John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota.

By the mid-1960s, Minneapolis was an acknowledged national leader in the development of elderly public housing, not only in quantity but also in the quality of buildings constructed. A 1969 newspaper article noted that the design of these buildings was more notable because of the financial and regulatory limits within which they were executed. According to the article, “the [MHRA’s] buildings must meet stringent budgetary restrictions and adhere to picky federal design and space regulations in order to qualify for the grants with which they are built. Such strait-jacket conditions would in most cases cause stereotyped, sterilized architecture,” but instead, the MHRA had “worked with rare imagination within these limitations…to achieve buildings of tasteful, distinctive design.”66

By the late 1960s, however, it had become clear to some that the MHRA had focused on the development of elderly housing to the exclusion of housing for low-income families. By 1968, the city had three times as many elderly units as family units, with many more elderly units in progress.

66 Peter Altman, “City’s Housing for Elderly Towers Is Challenge to Private Builders,” Minneapolis Star, December 19, 1969.

5.26

After the construction of Olson, Lyndale and Glenwood Homes in 1959 and 1960, the MHRA appears to have halted the construction of new buildings for low-income families for the remainder of the decade.67 In 1968, the MHRA launched a scattered site program, in which low-income families were housed in single-family homes that the MHRA purchased on scattered sites around the city. By 1970, low-income families could live in houses throughout the city owned or leased by the MHRA; however, it appears that the amount of housing provided was inadequate to meet demand.68 In February of 1970, the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department recommended that a halt be placed on the construction of low-income elderly housing until the need for low-income family housing need was met. In July of that year, a group of community organizers also filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Department, which, among other things, charged the MHRA with “devoting its efforts entirely to building housing for the elderly and…building no low- rent family units.”69

Questions about the prudence of constructing more elderly housing units in Minneapolis were accompanied by concerns about the effectiveness of the public housing program across the nation. In the early 1970s, high rates of foreclosures and inefficient, expensive projects built under private- sector partnerships, as well as concerns over mismanagement of the public housing programs, led President Richard Nixon to pass a moratorium on most new public housing construction in 1973. After the moratorium, the focus of federal housing assistance policy continued a shift begun in the 1960s away from new construction to other methods of subsidized housing. In Minneapolis, the moratorium effectively froze the MHRA’s ability to construct any new public housing, and appears to have also effectively marked the end of the MHRA’s construction of public housing for the elderly.

67 A 1973 MHRA publication indicates that a 15-unit development for low-income families was constructed at 14th Avenue North and Aldrich Avenue North in 1968; however, this development does not appear in a 1974 publication. Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Housing and Renewal in Minneapolis, 1974, vertical file “Housing: Housing & Redevelopment Authority (MHRA),” James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library. 68 “Housing for Large, Poor Families,” Minneapolis Tribune, September 9, 1968; Minneapolis Community Development Agency and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, 50 Years: Forging New Traditions in Community Building, 1997, vertical file “Housing: Housing & Redevelopment Authority (MHRA),” James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library; Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority, MHRA, October 1971, Folder 9, Box 19, Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development Collection, James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Public Library; “On Recognizing the Leaders,” Minneapolis Tribune, February 5, 1971; Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority, “Low Rent Housing for Families,” 1970, vertical file “Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 1960s – 1990s,” James K Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library. 69 Jim Shoop, “Complaint Says City Slow in Housing,” Minneapolis Star, July 30, 1970.

5.27

PRESERVATION OVERVIEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION

In order for a property to be designated as historic, it must meet criteria for designation outlined in federal, state, and/or local preservation frameworks. In general, a property must be recognized as a property type that is eligible for preservation, and exhibit sufficient historic significance and historic integrity for designation. This section provides an overview of federal and local designation for historic properties, and outlines the relevant laws and regulations related to each level of designation. Federal Designation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, is a key piece of federal legislation that provides for the protection of cultural resources in the United States. The NHPA established the NRHP as “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worth of preservation.” The NHPA also established State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). To be considered NRHP-eligible, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria defined by the National Park Service: Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Association with the life of a significant person.

Criterion C: Embody a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.

Criterion D: Yield, or be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.

Certain types of properties are not typically eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criteria Considerations allow for properties such as cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religions institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years to be considered eligible if they are integral parts of larger historic districts that do meet the standard criteria, or if they fall under one of the Considerations below:

Criterion Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criterion Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criterion Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his production life.

5.28

Criterion Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criterion Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified matter as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived.

Criterion Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance.

Criterion Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years it is of exceptional importance.

If a property is determined to possess historic significance under one of these criteria, its integrity is evaluated using the seven aspects of integrity. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation identifies the seven aspects of integrity to be used in evaluating properties for eligibility. These aspects of integrity are: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location: The place where the property was constructed of the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting: The physical environment/character of the place where the property played its historical role.

Design: How well the property retains combinations of elements creating its form, plan, space, structure, and style.

Materials: How physical elements were combined at specific time periods and in particular patterns to create the property.

Workmanship: How well a property retains physical evidence of the crafts of a particular time period in history.

Feeling: The combination of the property’s physical features that express the historic sense of a particular time period.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

If a property is determined to possess historical significance under one or more criteria, retains sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance, and meets any applicable criteria considerations, the property is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

5.29

City of Minneapolis Local Designation

The City of Minneapolis defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of seven criteria, as outlined in Section 599.210 of the City of Minneapolis Municipal Code. The criteria that must be considered when determining the local historic significance of a property include: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. 3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES AND RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Property types associated with the theme of residential development within the context of Minneapolis in the Modern Era will be located within the city limits of Minneapolis, will have achieved significance between 1930 and 1975, and will demonstrate historic significance under one or more designation criteria in connection to this theme. This section describes the property types most likely to be associated with this theme, and the associated property types’ relationship to NRHP and local designation criteria. Associated Property Types

Specific property types associated with the theme of residential development within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 are listed below. Of the property categories acknowledged by the National Register (buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects), properties associated with this theme are most likely to be buildings or districts. These might include: 1) Properties associated with efforts to provide temporary housing after World War II, such as Quonset huts and trailers 2) Properties associated with privately-funded residential development, including a. Single family tract houses and subdivisions b. Single family high-style Modernist houses c. Multi-family apartment buildings, townhomes, condominiums, and duplexes

5.30

3) Properties associated with public housing developed by the Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority, including a. Low-rise multi-family housing complexes b. “Scattered site” single-family houses c. Neighborhood-scale, high-rise, and “horizontal high-rise” apartment buildings for the elderly 4) Properties associated with famous individuals who achieved significance for contributions to Minneapolis residential development, including places of residence and work. Associated Properties’ Relationship to National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, properties must have obtained significance for one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following section provides suggestions on how properties associated with the theme of residential development within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 might be evaluated for significance under these four criteria. The term “subject property” is used to refer to properties associated with this theme. For additional information, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.70 Criterion A: Association with Significant Events

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, subject properties must be “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” These events include 1) “a specific event marking an important moment in American prehistory or history” and 2) “a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation.” Some historic events and trends identified in this chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 with which subject properties might be associated include 1) the explosive growth of residential suburban development following World War II; 2) the trend towards private development of multi-family housing, including apartment buildings and Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), beginning in the 1960s; 3) the establishment, growth, and evolution of federally-subsidized public housing during the Modern Era; and 4) patterns of racial housing segregation and “white flight.” These events and trends are linked to at least two Areas of Significance defined by the National Park 71 Service in the National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. These include: • Community Planning and Development: “the design or development of the physical structure of communities” • Social History: “the history of efforts to promote the welfare of society; the history of society and the lifeways of its social groups”

70 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. 71 For a complete list of Areas of Significance, see the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf.

5.31

Subject properties or districts may be considered for significance under Criterion A within these Areas of Significance. For example, a subdivision developed with single family homes during the postwar era could be considered for designation as a historic district within the Area of Significance of Community Planning and Development. The period of significance for a subject property evaluated under Criterion A should reflect the time period during which the property achieved significance. The level of significance will likely be local. Criterion B: Association with Significant Persons

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B, properties must be “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” A significant individual is one “whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.” Though it seems unlikely that Criterion B would apply to properties considered within the theme of residential development in the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975, it is possible that additional research would uncover individuals associated with subject properties who have achieved significance within the areas of private or public housing development, or in efforts to eliminate housing discrimination in Minneapolis. It is also possible that individual houses would be eligible for designation as the homes of individuals significant under other themes discussed in this context study, such politics, religion, or education. To be significant for association with an individual, a subject property must have been associated with the individual during the time when he or she achieved significance, and the property must be the best illustration of that individual’s achievements. The individual must have directly influenced the conception and/or development of the property, or have lived in the property while making their contributions to their respective fields in Minneapolis. The length of association with the individual in comparison with other associated properties should also be considered. Properties identified as the best representation of an individual’s contributions to residential development might be eligible under Criterion B in the Areas of Significance of Community Planning and Development or Social History; other Areas of Significance might apply for properties associated with individuals significant for accomplishments in areas other than residential development. The period of significance should reflect the time period during which the individual achieved significance and was associated with the property. The area of significance would likely be local. Properties significant for association with notable architects or contractors should be considered under Criterion C. Criterion C: Design/Construction

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible under Criterion C, properties must “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or…represent the work of a master, or…possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Properties that represent a type, period, or method of construction are those that illustrate, through distinctive features, a particular architectural style or construction method. They might illustrate “the pattern of features common to a particular class of

5.32 resources, the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, the evolution of that class, or the transition between classes of resources.” These properties might be significant in the Areas of Significance of Engineering, “the practical application of scientific principles to design, construct, and operate equipment, machinery, and structures to serve human needs,” or Architecture, “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs.” For example, a residential subdivision might be nominated under Criterion C for the distinctive features that characterize it as an example of a postwar residential development or an individual high-rise apartment building might be nominated under Criterion C as an example of public housing for the elderly developed during the 1950s and 60s. Typical architectural styles of postwar single-family tract houses have been addressed in this chapter; other buildings that appear representative of modern architectural styles can be evaluated within the context of Chapter 9, “Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects.” Properties that appear representative of the work of a master (i.e., a notable architect, engineer, or contractor), or that possess high artistic value, should also be evaluated within the context of Chapter 9. The level of significance would likely be local. All properties designated under Criterion C should have a period of significance synonymous with their date of construction. Criterion D: Information Potential

To be considered eligible under Criterion D, properties must “have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion D, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the theme of residential development within this context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion D. Criterion Considerations:

The temporal period of this context study ends in 1975, 45 years from today’s date. Thus, it is possible that some associated properties may have achieved exceptional significance within the past 50 years under Criterion Consideration G.

5.33

Associated Properties’ Relationship to Local Designation Criteria: Criterion 1: Association with Significant Events

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion A (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Association with Significant Persons or Groups

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion B (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 2. Criterion 3: Association with City or Neighborhood Identity

Houses and residential buildings determine much of the character and identity of city neighborhoods. Additionally, Minneapolis achieved national recognition for the development of elderly public housing, and many of the elderly high-rise apartment buildings constructed around downtown during the 1960s have shaped the city’s skyline. Thus, it is possible that some subject properties will be eligible for local designation under Criterion 3 for association with neighborhood or city identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

Properties that meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 4. Some properties considered for significance under local Criterion 4 should be evaluated under the themes of Architecture and Architects, discussed in Chapter 9, rather than under the theme of residential development. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

Some properties that meet National Register Criterion C (see above) as representative of a class of resources might also be eligible under local Criterion 5. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 6. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion 7, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the theme of residential

5.34

development within the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion 7 for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion 7. Integrity

To retain integrity, a subject property must retain most or all of the seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that retain integrity will have the ability to communicate their historic significance through their physical features. For more information on integrity, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Other Considerations By the end of World War II, most of the available land within the city limits of Minneapolis had been developed. Though some subdivisions were constructed at the edges of the city in the immediate postwar era, the majority of residential development during the postwar era occurred in the surrounding suburbs. Thus, some of the best examples of Modern Era subdivisions in the metropolitan area may be located outside of Minneapolis proper.

5.35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abler, Ronald, John S. Adams, and John R. Borchert. The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976.

Borchert, John R., David Lanegran, David Gebhard, and Judith A. Martin. Legacy of Minneapolis: Preservation Amidst Change. Bloomington, MN: Voyageur Press, 1983.

Citizens League Committee on Land for Housing. Better Use of Land and Housing: A Modest Proposal for a New Public Role in the Re-Building of the Older Neighborhoods of the Twin Cities Area. Prepared by the Citizens League Committee on Land for Housing, April 30, 1971.

City of Minneapolis Planning Commission. The ‘50s and Minneapolis Housing Construction Trends. Housing Series No. 2. [Minneapolis, MN?]: December 1959.

Ehman-Solberg, Kevin. “Historic African American Population in Minneapolis, 1910.” 2017. Mapping Prejudice Project, https://www.mappingprejudice.org/what-are- covenants/index.html#matter.

Gebhard, David and Tom Martinson. A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.

Jacobs, James A. Detached America: Building Houses in Postwar Suburbia. Charlottesville VA: University of Virginia Press, 2015.

Halvorsen Ludt, Tamara. Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority Developed Mid-Century High-Rise Senior Housing. Prepared for the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, June 2019.

Martin, Judith and David A. Lanegran. Where We Live: The Residential Districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

Massey, James C. and Shirley Maxwell. The Recent Past: Strategies for Evaluation. Prepared for the National Preservation Institute, May 2017.

Millet, Larry. AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007.

Millet, Larry. Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection. Hennepin County Library.

Minneapolis Community Development Agency and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority. 50 Years: Forging New Traditions in Community Building. 1997. Located in the vertical file “Housing: Housing & Redevelopment Authority (MHRA)” at the James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library.

5.36

Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development Collection. James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Public Library.

Minneapolis Community Planning and Management Team. Population and Housing Summary of Minneapolis. [Minneapolis, MN?]: [Minneapolis Planning and Development?], c. 1970.

Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Housing and Renewal in Minneapolis. 1974. Located in the vertical file “Housing: Housing & Redevelopment Authority (MHRA)” at the James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library.

Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority. “Low Rent Housing for Families.” 1970. Located in the vertical file “Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 1960s – 1990s” at the James K Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library.

Minneapolis Star.

Minneapolis Tribune. “Minnesota Modern Registry.” Docomomo-us-mn.org. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html.

National Register of Historic Places. Lee, Arthur and Edith, House. Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination # 14000391. https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/14000391.pdf.

Pettis, Emily, Amy Squitieri, Christina Slattery, Christine Long, Patti Kuhn, Debra McClane, and Sarah Groesbeck. A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 723. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2012.

Reichard, Gary W. “Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey.” Minnesota History 56, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 50 – 67.

Roise, Charlene and Rachel Peterson. Glendale Townhomes: An Assessment of National Register Eligibility. Prepared for LHB, August 2015.

Smith, Rebecca Lou. Postwar Housing in National and Local Perspective: A Twin Cities Case Study. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, Publication No. CURA 78-4. [Minneapolis, MN?]: 1978.

Spangler, Earl. The Negro in Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: T. S. Denison & Company, Inc., 1961. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b538878&view=1up&seq=8.

Tselos, George Dimitri. “The Minneapolis Labor Movement in the 1930s.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1970.

5.37

Vaile, Roland S. ed. Impact of the Depression on Business Activity and Real Income in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Studies in Economics and Business no. 8. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1933.

Von Hoffman, Alexander. “A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949.” Housing Policy Debate 11, no. 2 (2000): 299 – 326.

Wright, Gwendolyn. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.

5.38

CHAPTER SIX

University of Minnesota’s West Bank, 1965. University Archives, University of Minnesota.

EDUCATION

List of Tables

Table 6.1: Extant Minneapolis public schools built, expanded, or acquired, 1930 - 1975. 6.3

List of Figures

Figure 6.1: Extant public school infrastructure constructed, expanded, or acquired, 1930 – 6.2 1975. Figure 6.2: Southwest High School, October 5, 1940. 6.4 Figure 6.2: Enrollments in Minneapolis Elementary School Districts, 1951 – 1962. 6.5 Figure 6.3: Armatage Elementary School, August 11, 1958. 6.6 Figure 6.4: Minneapolis public facilities, including public schools, 1960. 6.7 Figure 6.5: South High School, September, 1970. 6.9 Figure 6.6: Minneapolis private and parochial schools, 1961. 6.10 Figure 6.7: Talmud Torah, October 18, 1951. 6.11 Figure 6.8: Miller Vocational School, May 29, 1934. 6.14 Figure 6.9: Dunwoody Industrial Institute, November 10, 1942. 6.16 Figure 6.10: University of Minnesota’s West Bank, 1965. 6.19 Figure 6.11: Science Hall and Sverdrup Hall, c. 1955 – 1960. 6.22

EDUCATION

In 2005, the City of Minneapolis’s Heritage Preservation Commission commissioned Carole Zellie of Landscape Research, LLC to prepare the “Minneapolis Public Schools Historic Context Study.” The context study is a thorough history of the Minneapolis Public School system from 1883 to 1962. As such, this chapter summarizes relevant history from that study and seeks to expand on the study to provide a historical context for public education after 1962 as well as private education and post- secondary education in Minneapolis during the Modern Era. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Public Schools1

From 1930 through the early 1940s, the Minneapolis public school system was faced with a declining birthrate, slowing immigration, and decreasing numbers of elementary school-aged children, leading to a decrease in the construction of new school buildings. The Great Depression’s impact on municipal tax revenues also led to a decrease in construction, and caused the school district to defer maintenance on existing buildings. However, the Great Depression also brought federal investment into the Minneapolis school system: the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and the Public Works Administration (PWA) funded building construction and maintenance of buildings, and FERA also funded educational programs such as adult education and recreation (see Chapter 2, The Great Depression, the New Deal and World War II, for more information on the PWA, FERA, and the Great Depression). Between 1931 and 1949, seven new schools were constructed in Minneapolis. Designed in both historic styles and the new Streamline Moderne and Art Deco styles, these schools represent the last buildings designed by the Minneapolis school system’s Bureau of Buildings. They included Southwest High School (1940, 1942, 1956 additions/alterations, 4600 Beard Avenue South), Folwell Junior High School (1931, 1937 addition, 3611 20th Avenue South), Sheridan Junior High School (1932 with 1967 addition, 1201 University Avenue Northeast), Ramsey Junior High (1931, 1 49th Street West) and Morris Park Elementary (1939, 1953 addition, 3810 56th Street East). 2

1 A historic context for Minneapolis public schools from 1930 until 1962 has been developed by Carole Zellie in her Minneapolis Public Schools Historic Context Study (Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, April 2005). The following two paragraphs summarize the information available in this context study. 2 Carole Zellie, Minneapolis Public Schools Historic Context Study (Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, April 2005), 5, 33 – 38. See below “Trade and Professional Schools” section below for information on the seventh school, Miller Vocational.

6.1

Figure 6.1 Extant public school infrastructure constructed, expanded, or acquired, 1930 – 1975. Map developed by Visible City, 2020.

6.2

Table 6.1: Extant Minneapolis Public Schools Built, Expanded or Acquired, 1930 - 1975:

School Address Date of School Date of Date of Construction Addition Acquisition

Susan B. Anthony High 5757 Irving Ave. S. 1958 School Anwatin Junior High 256 Upton Ave. S. 1959 1974 School Armatage School 2501 56th St. W. 1952 Audubon School 4030-40 Chowen Ave. 1924 1954 S. Clara Barton School 4247 Colfax Ave. S. 1915 1972 Michael J. Dowling 3900 W. River Pkwy. 1924 1936, 1961 School Bethune/Grant School 919 Emerson Ave. N. 1967 Eugene Field School 4601-55 4th Ave. S. 1920 1964 Gordon Elementary 1615 Queen Ave. N. 1950 1974 School Hale School 1210 54th St. E. 1930 1954 Elizabeth L. Hall 1601 Aldrich Ave. N. 1960 1963 Elementary School Hamilton Elementary 4141 Dupont Ave. N. 1967 School Patrick Henry High 4320 Newton Ave. N. 1926 1955 School Elizabeth Kenny School 5720 Emerson Ave. S. 1954 1957 Madison School 501 15th St. E. 1889 1953 Morris Park School 3810 56th St. E. 1939 1953 New Holland Elementary 1534 6th St. NE 1968 School Northeast Junior High 2955 Hayes St. NE 1956 1956, 1959 School Seward Elementary 2317 28th Ave. S. 1966 School Sheridan School 1201 University Ave. 1932 1967 NE New South High School 3131 19th Ave. S. 1970 Southwest High School 3510 47th St. W. 1940 1942, 1955 Southwest Junior High 3510 47th St. W. 1968 School Miller Vocational High 1101 3rd Ave. S. 1932 1940, 1955 School Waite Park School 1800 34th Ave. NE 1950 1954 Wenonah School 5625 23rd Ave. S. 1952 1958 Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection, Hennepin County Library Digital Collections; Carole Zellie, Minneapolis Public Schools Historic Context Study (prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, April 2005); Minneapolis Public Schools Facility Histories, https://mpshistory.mpls.k12.mn.us/schools_and_facilities.

6.3

Based on plans developed during the previous decade, Folwell and Ramsey display Classical and Gothic references; Morris Park is an example of the Collegiate Gothic Revival style. At Sheridan Junior High, the influence of Art Deco is evident in the vertical emphasis created by pilasters at entrances and spaced across façades, in the geometric and plant-and-animal motifs carved at entrances and pilaster capitals, and in the chevron brick design. At Southwest High School, bands of windows, stone string courses, and a flat roof create the horizontal emphasis characteristic of the Streamline Moderne style.3

Figure 6.2 Southwest High School, constructed in 1940, displays elements of the Streamline Moderne style. Southwest High School, October 5, 1940. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

The baby boom that followed World War II brought increased enrollment to Minneapolis public schools, leading the Minneapolis Board of Education to construct nine new schools (eight of which remain) and additions to at least twenty existing schools by 1962. New buildings during the 1950s and early 1960s were designed by Minneapolis architectural firms such as Thorshov and Cerny and Magney, Tusler, and Setter and featured modern building technologies such as steel and concrete structures and glass curtain walls.

3 Zellie, Minneapolis Public Schools, 33 – 38; “Moderne Style, 1930 – 1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, accessed May 8, 2020, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/moderne.html.

6.4

Figure 6.3 Enrollments in Minneapolis Elementary School Districts, 1951 – 1962. City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, 1961. Minnesota Reflections, Minnesota Digital Library.

Collaboration between the Minneapolis Park and Education Boards led to the development of landscaped school sites, such as those at Armatage Elementary School (1952, 1954 and 1956 additions/alterations, 2501 56th Street West) and Waite Park Elementary (1950, 1800 34th Avenue

6.5

Northeast). Between 1960 and 1973, the number of Minnesotans with high school degrees increased from 44% to 70% 4 and enrollment in Minneapolis schools remained relatively stable.5

Figure 6.4 Armatage Elementary School, constructed in 1952, featured a 23-acre landscaped site. Armatage Elementary School, August 11, 1958. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

The designs of new Midcentury primary and secondary schools reflected current trends in architectural design. Architectural historian Larry Millet notes that while “earlier schools had generally been symmetrical, multistory buildings with towers, projecting pavilions, or other features that endowed them with a strong sense of hierarchy…most Midcentury schools, by contrast, were long, low and sprawling.”6 In Minnesota, most elementary schools were one-story brick buildings with spread-out plans, a prominent entrance canopy, and classroom wings featuring ribbon windows (the incorporation of natural light into classrooms was a high priority for Midcentury school design). These characteristic features are evident at Waite Park, a low-slung, brick school which featured a large library, gym, and administrative core and radiating one-story classroom wings with horizontal bands of windows. The designs of Armatage, Kenney Elementary School (5720 Emerson Avenue South, 1954, 1957 and 1962 additions), Shingle Creek Elementary School

4 Clarke A. Chambers, “Educating for the Future,” in Minnesota in a Century of Change, edited by Clifford E. Clark, Jr. (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1989), 499. 5 Zellie, Minneapolis Public Schools, 5 – 6, 39 – 42. 6 Larry Millet, Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 168.

6.6

(5000 Oliver Avenue North, 1958/1959 – 1960), and Wenonah Elementary (5625 23rd Avenue South, 1952 with 1958 addition) also display some of these characteristics.7

Figure 6.5 Minneapolis public facilities, including public schools, 1960. City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, 1960. Minnesota Reflections, Minnesota Digital Library.

7 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 168; Zellie, Minneapolis Public Schools, 41 – 42.

6.7

Many senior high schools constructed during the postwar era were sprawling complexes, with plain brick walls, concrete columns, and bands of windows. This classic Midcentury design is evident at Olson Junior High School (1962, 5012 James Avenue), as well as Anthony Junior High School (1958, 5757 Irving Avenue South). One of the more unique examples of school design in Minnesota was Northeast Junior High School (1956, 1959 addition, 2955 Hayes Street Northeast), which originally featured a multicolored curtain wall.8

Issues of school consolidation and financing shaped the Minneapolis public school system during the 1960s and early 1970s. The diversification of curricular and extracurricular programs, raising of educational standards, and addition of counseling programs caused the cost of school operation to outpace local property taxes, the primary source of school funding. The passage of the 1971 Omnibus Tax Bill, termed the “Minnesota Miracle,” led to an overhaul in the state’s education financing that lowered property tax rates and increased state contributions to K-12 education, and helped to decrease inequalities between poorer and richer school districts.9

School buildings that were designed and constructed during this period reflected the pedagogical and political currents of the mid-twentieth century. When the new Minneapolis South High School (1970, 3131 19th Avenue South) opened in 1970, it was designed as an “Open School,” and did not have individual classrooms on the second level. Open Schools were a response to “Fears that the U.S. was falling behind in key subjects like science and math,” and that the gap was the result of “America’s formal, teacher-led classrooms…crushing students’ creativity.”10 Students were supposed to come into “contact with things, books and one another at ‘interest centers’ and [learn] at their own pace with the help of the teacher.”11

Other new public schools constructed between 1962 and 1970 included Mary McLeod Bethune Elementary School (1967, 919 Emerson Avenue North), Hamilton Elementary School (1967, 4141 Dupont Avenue North), New Holland Elementary School (1534 6th Street Northeast, 1968), Seward Elementary School (2317 28th Avenue South), and Southwest Junior High School (3510 47th Street West). All were of brick construction, and most were two stories in height with basically square or rectangular massing, sometimes with an interior courtyard. Schools designed during this time appear to have made somewhat less extensive use of windows, with regular patterns of window openings rather than ribbon windows.12

8 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 168 - 174; Zellie, Minneapolis Public Schools, 42. 9 Chambers, “Educating for the Future,” in Clarke, Minnesota in a Century of Change, 497 – 498; Steven Dornfield, “The Minnesota Miracle: A Roundtable Discussion,” Minnesota History 60, no. 8 (Winter 2007 – 2008): 313 – 314. 10 Steve Drummond, “‘Open Schools’ Made Noise in the ‘70s; Now They’re Just Noisy,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio, March 27, 2017, https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/03/27/520953343/open-schools-made-noise-in-the-70s-now- theyre-just-noisy. 11 Ibid. 12 Minneapolis Public Schools, Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection, Hennepin County Library Digital Collections, https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/PermitCards/id/78432/rec/2; Historic photographs in Minneapolis Public

6.8

Figure 6.6 South High School, constructed 1970. Interior photograph shows second level open concept. South High School, September, 1970. Minneapolis Public Schools Collection, Hennepin County Library.

Private Schools

Minneapolis’s tradition of private primary and secondary education, which began in the mid- nineteenth century, remained in place through the Modern Era. City directories from 1930 to 1975 indicate that the City maintained between approximately 30 and 40 parochial schools during this time period. Most of these were Catholic, reflecting the historic strength of the Catholic parochial school system in Minnesota’s metropolitan centers, though several Lutheran schools, a few Jewish schools, and one Seventh-Day Adventist school also existed during this time period. By 1976, Catholic parochial schools were concentrated in the middle- and high-income neighborhoods of South, Southwest, North, and Northeast Minneapolis, while Lutheran parochial schools were located in middle-class South Minneapolis.13

Schools Collection, Hennepin County Library Digital Collections, https://digitalcollections.hclib.org/digital/collection/p17208coll14/?_ga=2.123994249.2069062802.1575899832- 1152606646.1568991521. 13 Ronald Abler, John S. Adams, and John R. Borchert, The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis (Cambridge, MA: The Ballinger

6.9

Figure 6.7 Minneapolis parochial and private schools, 1961. City of Minneapolis Planning Commission, 1961. Minnesota Reflections, Minnesota Digital Library.

Publishing Company, 1976), 28; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 58 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1930), 12; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 63 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1935), 12; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 69 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1941), 12; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1946), 11; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1950), 11; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1955), 12; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1960 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1961), 10; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1965 - 66 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., c. 1965), VIII; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1970 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1970), VIII; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1975 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1975), VIII; Theodore C. Blegen, Minnesota: A History of the State, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1975), 413 – 414; Isaac Attwater, ed. History of the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, Part 1 (New York, NY: Munsell & Company, 1893), 112 – 165.

6.10

Examples of Catholic parochial schools included the Incarnation School, founded in the early twentieth century as part of the Church of the Incarnation parish. In 1935, the church constructed a second school building, Moynihan Hall (1935, 1963 addition, 3800 Pleasant Avenue) on its property at the corner of 38th Street and Pleasant Avenue in South Minneapolis. An addition to this building was constructed in 1963.14 Jewish parochial schools included the Talmud Torah, a religious school established in the historically Jewish neighborhood of North Minneapolis in 1894, which served Jewish youth during the mid-twentieth century from its building at 1616 Queen Avenue North (1951, razed, 1616 Queen Avenue North). Enrollment at the Talmud Torah peaked at 1,200 during the postwar period, but declined as Jewish Minneapolitans moved to the suburbs during the 1950s.15 Other private schools included the Breck School (c. 1957, later additions, 4200 West River Road), which moved from St. Paul to Minneapolis in the mid-1950s, and Minnehaha Academy (c. 1913 with later additions, 3107 47th Avenue South).16

Figure 6.8 The 1616 Queen Avenue North location of the Talmud Torah, constructed in 1951, provided religious education for Jewish residents of North Minneapolis during the postwar era. Talmud Torah, October 18, 1951. Minneapolis Star Journal Tribune, Minnesota Historical Society.

14 R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1975, 194; Lauren Anderson with John Smoley, Designation Study: Church of the Incarnation (Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, February 14, 2018), 7, 41. 15 Laura Weber, “Talmud Torah, Minneapolis,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last updated November 7, 2016, https://www.mnopedia.org/group/talmud-torah-minneapolis. 16 R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1965 - 66, 226 – 227; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 63 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1935), 12, 2056 – 2057; “History,” Breck School, accessed September 13, 2019, https://www.breckschool.org/about-breck/history; “History,” Minnehaha Academy, accessed September 13, 2019, http://www.minnehahaacademy.net/aboutus/history/.

6.11

HIGHER EDUCATION

Across the United States, enrollment in post-secondary education increased during the Modern Era. In 1954, 37,784 Minnesotans were enrolled full-time in institutions of higher education; by 1970, this number had increased to 124,752.17 Civilian enrollment at public and private colleges suffered for a brief period during World War II – in Minnesota, the 34,600 college students enrolled during the school year of 1940 – 41 dropped to 20,000 in 1943 – 44. The war halted construction of physical facilities, and also led to the curtailing of course offerings and activities seen as non-essential to the war effort.18 Though civilian attendance decreased, institutions of higher education were sustained in part by the creation of specialized programs of study for an influx of military students. As the war drew to a close, the passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (known as the G. I. Bill) had large implications for higher education across the nation. Among other benefits, the Act financed between one and four years of higher education for WWII servicemen and servicewomen, including educational costs of up to $500 per year and a monthly living stipend. Veterans flooded the admissions halls of institutions across the country; in response, colleges and universities scrambled to hire staff and to construct academic buildings and student housing. By 1965, over 2 million veterans of World War II and the Korean War had used the G.I. Bill to finance their own higher education.19

Beginning in the 1950s, the desire to prove the theory of American exceptionalism in the global climate created by the Korean War, the growth of Chinese communism, the establishment of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, and the Cold War with the Soviet Union also brought about changes in higher education. Pressure to demonstrate excellence through academic achievement and the pursuit of math and science was applied to all levels of education, and institutions of higher education found increasing amounts of federal funding available for research, such as the fellowships and grants authorized by the National Defense Education Act of 1958. The mid-twentieth century also saw the physical expansion of college campuses, and a change in campus climate marked by the rejection of college oversight of students’ personal lives (in loco parentis) and a growing student activism. During the 1960s and 70s, students responded to social and political issues such as the Vietnam War, the draft, and the Civil Rights movement with protests, pushed for the expansion of course offerings into fields such as environmental, urban, and minority studies, and called for freedom from institution-imposed regulations on student life.20

17 Merrill E. Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society, 1973), 50, 146. 18 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 141. 19 Dave Kenney, Twin Cities Album: A Visual History (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 187; Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 141 – 143; Stanford Lehmberg and Ann M. Pflaum, The University of Minnesota 1945 – 2000 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), 6. 20 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 141 – 153; Chambers, “Educating for the Future,” in Clarke, Minnesota in a Century of Change, 490 – 501; Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 37.

6.12

During the 1960s, the impact of the civil rights movement led to increased recruitment of students of color by historically white institutions of higher education. This was most noticeable at Minnesota’s private institutions, though minority enrollment in all public institutions increased from 2.9% to 3.7% between 1972 and 1974.21 Women’s access to higher education also shifted during this period, from the inauguration of women’s studies programs in the late 1960s to the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX was federal legislation which guaranteed that no school receiving federal funds could discriminate based on gender and represented a significant step towards increasing the number of women who obtained college degrees and participated in collegiate sports.22 Trade and Professional Schools

During and after World War II, the demand for applied education in Minnesota increased, fueled first by the demands of wartime production and then by large numbers of veterans returning home. Eager to accommodate veterans sponsored by the G.I. Bill, local school districts increased and developed the vocational and technical programs under their supervision. By 1951, Minneapolis high schools maintained vocational departments with day and evening programs for students and adults. In addition, the City operated the Minneapolis Vocational High School and Technical Institute (1932, 1940 and 1956 additions, 1101 3rd Avenue South).23

Minneapolis’s public vocational school was an outgrowth of the Girls’ Vocational High School (c. 1914, razed, formerly located at 330 12th Street South), established in 1914. The 1932 building at 1101 3rd Avenue South, known as Miller Vocational School, continued its specialization in female vocational education during the 1930s. In 1940, an addition was constructed to accommodate a boy’s vocational school; in 1948, the men’s and women’s sides were combined into a single school, renamed the Minneapolis Vocational High School and Technical Institute. By 1954, the school was lauded as the “largest vocational high school in the Upper Midwest.” It served both high school and adult students, with over 1,700 enrolled in daytime classes and 4,000 in evening classes. By the mid- 1950s, the school offered courses in 29 different trades including barbering, cosmetology, shoe repair, culinary arts, tailoring, watchmaking, aviation mechanics, pre-nursing, printing, and commercial art. The school continued to offer a broad variety of technical and vocational programs through at least the late 1960s.24

21 Arnold Cooper, “Beyond the Threshold: Black Students at Moorhead State College, 1968 – 1972,” Minnesota History 51, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 23. 22 United States Department of Justice, Equal Access to Education: Forty Years of Title IX, June 23, 2012, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2012/06/20/titleixreport.pdf. 23 “Minneapolis Vocational High School and Technical Institute,” in “Special Vocational Education Issue,” special issue, School Bulletin no. 13, November 26, 1951, p. 8 – 16; Chambers, “Educating for the Future,” in Clarke, Minnesota in a Century of Change, 486 – 487. 24 Citizens League, “Citizens League Report on Community Colleges for the Twin Cities Area,” June 28, 1967, https://citizensleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/PolicyReportEducationJune-1967.pdf; “Vocational Senior High

6.13

In 1945, a system of Area Vocational/Technical (Vo-Tech) Schools was created by the Minnesota State Legislature. These schools received state and federal funding but were operated by local school districts. They were intended to provide training for high school graduates seeking jobs in fields such as agriculture, home economics, health, and industry. By the late 1960s, there were 28 Vo-Tech schools across the state.25 Minneapolis, which received authorization to begin an Area Vo-Tech program in 1955, carried out its Vo-Tech programs at its public high schools and the Minneapolis Vocational High School and Technical Institute (eventually renamed the Minneapolis Area Vocational Technical School).26

Figure 6.9 The Miller Vocational School, constructed in 1932, provided vocational and technical training for Minneapolis residents during the Modern Era. Miller Vocational School, May 29, 1934. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

School,” c. 1963, https://mpshistory.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/pff-1963-vocationalsenior.pdf; “40 Years Old This Month,” Minneapolis Tribune, December 5, 1954; “Minneapolis Vocational High School and Technical Institute,” in “Special Vocational Education Issue,” special issue, School Bulletin no. 13, November 26, 1951, p. 16; The Vocational Visitor, 1969, Folder 10, Box 14, Minneapolis Public Schools Collection, James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library. 25 Chambers, “Educating for the Future,” in Clarke, Minnesota in a Century of Change, 486 – 487; Farley D. Bright and Ralph R. Doty, A History of the State Department of Education in Minnesota (n.p.: Minnesota Department of Education, c. 1967), 26; Richard P. Kleeman, “Banker Elected Head of State School Board,” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, April 30, 1955. 26 The Vocational Visitor, 1969, Folder 10, Box 14, Minneapolis Public Schools Collection, James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Public Library; Richard P. Kleeman, “Banker Elected Head of State School Board,” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, April 30, 1955.

6.14

Vocational-technical schools in Minneapolis were not restricted to the public sphere. Private technical schools included the Dunwoody Industrial Institute (1917, 818 Dunwoody Boulevard), founded in the early twentieth century by a bequest from industrialist William Hood Dunwoody as an institution dedicated to the teaching of “industrial and mechanical arts.” The school’s managing director through 1945, Dr. Charles Prosser, was known as the “father of vocational education” in the United States, and shaped Dunwoody into a highly-regarded technical institution that modeled current theories in the field of vocational education through the mid-twentieth century. During World War II, Dunwoody contracted with the federal government to train thousands of men and women for placement in the military and defense industries; during the mid-twentieth century, school officials promoted the cause of vocational education across the state and the globe.27

Minneapolis City Directories from 1930 until 1975 indicate that many private trade and professional schools existed in the city during the Modern Era. In 1950, 52 such schools equipped students for careers in fields and professions such as accounting, business, art, music, aviation, secretarial work, and cosmetology. By 1955, the number of trade and professional schools in the city was nearly 100, and that number remained relatively steady through the mid-1970s.28

27 Catherine Quealy, “Three-Way Co-ordination --- Industry, Trade Schools, State Projects,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune and Star Journal, April 12, 1945; “100 Years of Excellence in Technical Education,” Dunwoody College of Technology Alumni & Friends Magazine, Spring 2014, 10 – 13, http://www.dunwoody.edu/pdfs/Alumni-Centennial-Timeline.pdf; C. Ben Wright, “For the Better Performance of Life’s Duties,” Dunwoody College of Technology, The First Century, 1914 – 2014 ([Minneapolis, MN]: Dunwoody College of Technology, 2013), 27 – 41, 55 – 76, 83 – 99. 28 Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 58 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1930), 12, 2258 - 2259; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 63 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1935), 12, 2056 - 2057; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 69 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1941), 12, 2277 - 2278; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1946), 11, 2054 - 2055; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1950), 11, 1989 - 1990; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1955), 12, 2039 - 2040; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1960 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1961), 10; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1965 - 66 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., c. 1965), VIII, 226 - 227; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1970 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1970), VIII, 198 - 199; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1975 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1975), VIII, 194 – 195.

6.15

Figure 6.10 The Dunwoody Industrial Institute, constructed in 1917, provided private vocational and technical training for Minneapolis residents during the Modern Era. Dunwoody Industrial Institute, November 10, 1942. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

Junior Colleges

The first public junior colleges in Minnesota were established by the local school districts in the second decade of the twentieth century, with earliest founded in Cloquet, Minnesota in 1914. In 1932, the University of Minnesota established a junior college within the University. Known as the General College, the junior college was intended to diversify the University’s offerings to accommodate students’ varied capabilities and interests. The State of Minnesota began providing aid to junior colleges in 1957. In 1963, it incorporated the junior colleges run by local school districts into a state junior college system under the control of the State Junior College Board. Though the University of Minnesota’s General College continued to operate through at least 1970, concerns over the University’s ability to meet the high demand for admissions led to the establishment of Minneapolis’s first public state junior college in 1965. Known as the Metropolitan State Junior College (and later as the Minneapolis Community College), the school operated first in classrooms at Central High School and then in the vacated Warrington Elementary School. In 1967, it began leasing facilities at Northwestern College across from Loring Park, eventually purchasing the college’s campus as the permanent location for the Metropolitan State Junior College (c. 1906 and

6.16

c. 1946, razed 1978 and 1986, 42 – 50 Willow Street).29 The popularity of state junior colleges as well as area vocational-technical schools increased during the 1960s and early 1970s. Between 1961 and 1974, enrollment in Minnesota’s junior colleges and Vo-Tech schools increased from 5.6% to 14.4% (junior colleges) and from 2.9% to 14.7% (Vo-Tech schools) of all students enrolled in institutions of higher education, respectively.30 Private junior colleges established in Minneapolis included the Catholic St. Mary’s Junior College (construction date unknown, unclear if extant, 2600 6th Street South). St. Mary’s Junior College, established in the 1960s, was descended from the nineteenth-century St. Mary’s School of Nursing (the school eventually merged with the St. Paul based Catholic women’s college, St. Catherine University).31 State Universities

Minnesota’s state universities were descendants of normal schools, established during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to train teachers. By 1921, the Minnesota legislature had designated all normal schools (located at Mankato, Winona, St. Cloud, Moorhead, Duluth, and Bemidji) as state teachers’ colleges, which provided four-year programs and bachelor’s degrees. Enrollment at state teachers’ colleges (renamed state colleges in 1957 and universities in 1975) soared after World War II and continued to grow through the early 1970s. The metropolitan area received its first state college, Metropolitan State, in 1972. Metropolitan offered a nontraditional approach to adults seeking upper division education by granting credit for learning outside the classroom. It also tailored its programs to graduates of junior colleges or vocational-technical schools. Known as a “college without walls,” the school did not initially establish a physical campus, but utilized spaces throughout the metro area.32 University of Minnesota33

During the Modern Era, higher education in Minneapolis was dominated by the University of Minnesota. From an institution of 1,000 students in 1890, the University had expanded to more than

29 Philip D. Helland, Establishment of Public Junior and Community Colleges in Minnesota, 1914 – 1983 ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Community College System, 1987), 1 – 371, 577; Zellie, Minneapolis Public Schools, 40. 30 G. Theodore Mitau, Minnesota’s Colleges of Opportunity: From Normal School to Teachers College and State University System – A Century of Academic Change in Minnesota ([Minneapolis]: Alumni Associations of the Minnesota State University System, 1977), 76 – 77; Blegen, Minnesota, 711. 31 “History of St. Kate’s,” St. Catherine University, accessed September 13, 2019, https://www.stkate.edu/about/history; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1970 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1970), 199; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1975 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1975), 194; Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission, Minnesota Private Higher Education (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission, 1970), 17. 32 Blegen, Minnesota: A History of the State, 411 – 412, 711; Wiliam E. Lass, “Minnesota State University, Mankato,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified August 13, 2018, http://www.mnopedia.org/place/minnesota-state-university- mankato; Chambers, “Educating for the Future,” in Clarke, Minnesota in a Century of Change, 495 – 496; “Metropolitan State Gest Big Approval for ‘No-Campus’ Plan,” Minneapolis Star, October 20, 1971; “Teaching Applicants: Some Profess Odd Faculties for This, That,” Minneapolis Star, November 23, 1972. Metropolitan State did maintain administrative offices in St. Paul. 33 Information on University buildings constructed between 1930 and 1975 is available via an interactive Campus History map located at https://apps.lib.umn.edu/campushistory/.

6.17

16,750 students in 1940, over half of all students enrolled in the state’s higher education institutions at the time.34 By 1958, there were approximately 27,000 students on the University’s Minneapolis campus alone.35

During World War II, University faculty supported the war effort through research, contributing to the development of wartime technologies such as the atomic bomb, submarine detection, rocket fuel, and synthetic rubber. The University of Minnesota’s Cadet Nurse program earned the distinction of training larger numbers of nurses than any other Cadet Nurse Corps program in the United States. As at other American institutions of higher education, the end of the war and the G. I. Bill brought a flood of new students to the University’s campus. Between 1945 and 1946, the number of enrolled students increased from 12,000 to 27,000 (18,929 of whom were veterans), leading to the construction of housing and classroom space. Some solutions, such as the conversion of the University’s Memorial Stadium to barracks, were temporary. Permanent buildings constructed during the postwar era on the Minneapolis campus included Centennial Hall (1951; 1614 Delaware Street Southeast), the University High School, now known as Peik Hall (1954; 159 Pillsbury Drive Southeast), Territorial Hall (1958, 417 Walnut Street Southeast), and Frontier Hall (1959, 701 Fulton Street Southeast).36

During the postwar era, the University’s influence extended beyond its St. Paul and Minneapolis campuses to the Duluth State Teachers College, which was added to the University in 1947, and into the lives of thousands of Minnesota residents through its noncollegiate programs (including the General Extension Division, agricultural short courses, and the Center for Continuation Study). Federal funding available for research increased through the postwar era and through the 1960s, leading to strong research programs at the University, and university faculty were engaged in public service projects, such as the rebuilding of postwar Asia and Europe. The University’s College of Science, Literature, and the Arts (renamed the College of Liberal Arts in 1963), where most postwar students enrolled, boasted faculty with international reputations, and the University’s graduate school drew students from across the country and the globe. The anticommunist movement of the 1950s also surfaced at the University during the postwar era, affecting faculty dismissals and decisions made by the administration.37

34 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 51. 35 R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1960 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1961), 10 36 The University’s most notable postwar housing project was the construction of University Village, a collection of trailers, Quonset huts, and metal barracks along Como Avenue near the St. Paul campus. Begun in 1946 by the federal government and intended to house veterans’ families, University Village was acquired by the University in 1948. See Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 7 – 8; “Minnesota Modern Registry,” docomomo-us-mn.org, accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html. 37 Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 3 – 68, 76; Elaine Tyler May, “Cold War Minnesota,” Minnesota History 61, no. 5 (Spring 2009): 225 – 226.

6.18

A second enrollment surge at the University began in the mid-1960s, as children born during the postwar “baby boom” reached college age. As enrollments continued to increase, the University looked for space to expand its Minneapolis campus. Railroad yards to the north and south and the political strength of the Prospect Park residential district to the east limited options for expansion, leading to the development of the University’s “West Bank” beginning in 1961. Plans for the West Bank campus (so named for its location on the west bank of the Mississippi River) followed the Modern design aesthetic then in vogue. Some of the West Bank’s first buildings included the classroom building now known as Blegen Hall (1962, 269 19th Avenue South) the Business Administration Tower (now known as Walter W. Heller Hall) (1963, 271 19th Avenue South), and the Social Sciences Building (1962, 267 19th Avenue South). Anderson Hall (1967, 257 19th Avenue South) was constructed in 1967, and the O. Meredith Wilson Library (1968, 309 19th Avenue South) was constructed the following year. By the late 1960s, older residential housing in the West Bank area was rented to University students, and several new high-rise apartment buildings had also been constructed.38

38 Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 69 – 81; “Minnesota Modern Registry,” docomomo-us-mn.org, accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html. These new high-rise buildings were constructed by the Cedar Riverside Associates, which also rented older housing in the area to students.

6.19

Figure 6.11 The West Bank of the University of Minnesota was developed beginning in the early 1960s to provide additional space for the University’s Minneapolis campus. Blegen Hall, the Business Administration Tower, and the Social Science Building are visible in this photograph, as well as the new bridge constructed across the Mississippi to accommodate the campus expansion. University of Minnesota’s West Bank, 1965. University Archives, University of Minnesota.

During this period, the University also began construction on a new health sciences complex with the completion of Health Sciences Unit A (now known as the Malcolm Moos Health Sciences Tower) (1973, 515 Delaware Street Southeast) in 1973.39

Like other institutions of higher education in the United States, the University saw increased student activism regarding civil rights, the Vietnam War, and the women’s movement during the 1960s and early 1970s; however, student protests at the University were less violent than at some other American universities. A significant protest occurred in May of 1970, when students protested U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War at the Minneapolis campus. The University responded to student demands with new departments and programs, including a degree program in American Indian studies in 1969, the Department of Afro-American and African Studies (after the occupation of Morrill Hall by African American students in 1969), and a degree program in Chicano studies in 1972.40 The women’s movement was evident in the establishment of the Minnesota Plan for Continuing Education for Women in 1960, (according to historians Stanford Lehmberg and Ann M. Pflaum, “one of the first university-based programs for women returning to higher-education”), the University Women’s Center in 1965, and the Council for University Women’s Progress in 1969 (“one of the first university-based women’s action groups in the United States”).41 During the 1960s and early 1970s, the University also added international and area studies programs and sought to accommodate international students and scholars.42 Private Colleges

During the Great Depression, private universities and colleges in Minnesota struggled to remain financially solvent and halted construction of new physical facilities.43 As at public universities, private colleges saw declining enrollments during World War II, then scrambled to hire staff and construct new facilities as large numbers of veterans enrolled after the war. Private colleges in Minnesota, worried about the expansion of teachers’ colleges into programs of study outside of education, opted to establish elementary education programs.44 During the 1950s, the formation or expansion of several foundations and organizations including the National Science Foundation, the

39 Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 82. 40Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 82 – 124. 41 Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 125 – 127. 42 Lehmberg and Pflaum, The University of Minnesota, 127 – 130. 43 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 53. 44 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 141 – 143.

6.20

Louis W. and Maud Hill Family Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, helped to provide financial support for Minnesota’ higher education institutions. Faced with the reality that they could no longer be sustained by gifts from individual donors, private institutions in Minnesota also turned to corporations for financial support, establishing the Minnesota College Fund Association (later known as the Minnesota Private College Fund) to facilitate this. Federal aid during the mid-1950s included $50 million in new college housing loans (1954) and the establishment of the National Merit Scholarship program (1955), and increased throughout the next decade and a half with loans for students under the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, money for construction under the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, and the start of the first large-scale federal undergraduate scholarship program in the Higher Education Act of 1965. Despite these federal contributions, expenditures increasingly outpaced revenues, resulting in larger deficits and indebtedness among private institutions by the late 1960s.45

Though overall college attendance in the U.S. increased between the mid-1950s and 1970, an increasingly smaller proportion of attendees were enrolled at private colleges. By 1970, Minnesota’s 16 private accredited colleges were educating approximately 20% of students enrolled in the state’s institutions of higher education (with the remaining 80% attending either the University of Minnesota, state colleges, or junior colleges). Nevertheless, between 1950 and 1970 accredited private institutions embarked on campus expansion programs, often constructing buildings that not only met programmatic needs but were aesthetically interesting.46

Some of these trends can be observed in the history of Augsburg College, apparently the only one of Minnesota’s 16 private, accredited four-year liberal arts colleges to be located in Minneapolis during the Modern Era.47 Like most of Minnesota’s private colleges and universities, Augsburg was established in affiliation with a religious institution. Founded as a Norwegian Lutheran college in Wisconsin in 1869, the institution relocated to Minneapolis in 1872. Like other private institutions, Augsburg reduced new construction and course offerings during the Great Depression. As some of the effects of the Depression were alleviated during the late 1930s, extracurricular activities and faculty pay raises reappeared, and a new building, the Sverdrup-Oftedal Memorial Hall (1939, 700-710 22nd Avenue South), was constructed. During World War II, the school faced declining enrollment and reduced program offerings, and rented its Memorial Hall to the University of Minnesota for a wartime training unit. Swelling enrollment after the war led to the acquisition or leasing of nearby buildings for classroom and housing space and hiring of additional faculty. The erection of Science Hall (1949, 707 21st Avenue South) in 1949 was followed by land acquisitions and the construction of other buildings during the 1950s and 60s.48

45 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 144 – 148. 46 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 146. 47 Augsburg did not receive its accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools until 1954. 48 Jarchow, Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota, 25, 80 – 81, 185 - 192; Doug Rossinow, “Tradition, Schism, and Continuity

6.21

Figure 6.12 Science Hall, constructed in 1949, was part of Augsburg College’s mid-twentieth century expansion. Science Hall and Sverdrup Hall, c. 1955 – 1960. University of Augsburg. Minneapolis City Directories from 1930 until 1975 indicate that many private colleges and schools existed in the city during the Modern Era. Some were trade and professional schools that offered courses in fields and professions such as accounting, business, art, music, aviation, secretarial work, and cosmetology. By 1950, the city had 52 such schools. The number jumped to nearly 100 in 1955, and continued at approximately that number through the mid-1970s. Among the private schools noted in directories were the Dunwoody Industrial Institute (discussed above), the Minneapolis College of Music (construction date unknown, razed 1959, 1025 LaSalle Avenue), the MacPhail School of Music (c. 1923, 1128 LaSalle Avenue), and the Minneapolis School of Art (now known as the Minneapolis College of Art and Design) (c. 1912, later additions, 200 25th Street East, now addressed at 2400 3rd Avenue South), which operated in connection with the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (see Chapter 8, Arts, Culture, and Recreation, for more information on art and music in Minneapolis). Several private religious schools, such as the Northwestern Schools (c. 1902

in Minnesota’s Communities of Faith,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last updated November 30, 2018, http://www.mnopedia.org/tradition-schism-and-continuity-minnesota-s-communities-faith.

6.22

and c. 1946, later additions, razed 1978 and 1986, 42 and 50 Willow Street)49 and North Central Bible Institute (c. 1902, later additions, 910 Elliot Avenue) were also located in the City.50 PRESERVATION OVERVIEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION

In order for a property to be designated as historic, it must meet criteria for designation outlined in federal, state, and/or local preservation frameworks. In general, a property must be recognized as a property type that is eligible for preservation, and exhibit sufficient historic significance and historic integrity for designation. This section provides an overview of federal and local designation for historic properties, and outlines the relevant laws and regulations related to each level of designation. Federal Designation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, is a key piece of federal legislation that provides for the protection of cultural resources in the United States. The NHPA established the NRHP as “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worth of preservation.” The NHPA also established State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). To be considered NRHP-eligible, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria defined by the National Park Service: Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Association with the life of a significant person.

Criterion C: Embody a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.

Criterion D: Yield, or be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.

Certain types of properties are not typically eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criteria Considerations allow for properties such as cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religions institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, commemorative properties, and properties that have

49 At midcentury, Northwestern owned several buildings around Loring Park, including 42 Willow Street, 50 Willow Street, and 1526 Harmon Place. See Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection, Hennepin County Library, and “Graham Asks Parking Limit for Northwestern Schools,” Minneapolis Tribune, October 11, 1950. 50 Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 58 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1930), 12, 2258 - 2259; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 63 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1935), 12, 2056 - 2057; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, vol. 69 (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1941), 12, 2277 - 2278; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1946), 11, 2054 - 2055; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1950), 11, 1989 - 1990; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory, (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1955), 12, 2039 - 2040; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1960 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1961), 10; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1965 - 66 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., c. 1965), VIII, 226 - 227; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1970 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1970), VIII, 198 - 199; R. L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory, 1975 (St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1975), VIII, 194 – 195.

6.23 achieved significance within the past 50 years to be considered eligible if they are integral parts of larger historic districts that do meet the standard criteria, or if they fall under one of the Considerations below:

Criterion Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criterion Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criterion Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his production life.

Criterion Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criterion Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified matter as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived.

Criterion Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance.

Criterion Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years it is of exceptional importance.

If a property is determined to possess historic significance under one of these criteria, its integrity is evaluated using the seven aspects of integrity. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation identifies the seven aspects of integrity to be used in evaluating properties for eligibility. These aspects of integrity are: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location: The place where the property was constructed of the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting: The physical environment/character of the place where the property played its historical role.

Design: How well the property retains combinations of elements creating its form, plan, space, structure, and style.

6.24

Materials: How physical elements were combined at specific time periods and in particular patterns to create the property.

Workmanship: How well a property retains physical evidence of the crafts of a particular time period in history.

Feeling: The combination of the property’s physical features that express the historic sense of a particular time period.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

If a property is determined to possess historical significance under one or more criteria, retains sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance, and meets any applicable criteria considerations, the property is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. City of Minneapolis Local Designation

The City of Minneapolis defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of seven criteria, as outlined in Section 599.210 of the City of Minneapolis Municipal Code. The criteria that must be considered when determining the local historic significance of a property include: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. 3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES AND RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Property types associated with the theme of education within the context of Minneapolis in the Modern Era will be located within the city limits of Minneapolis, will have achieved significance between 1930 and 1975, and will demonstrate historic significance under one or more designation criteria in connection to this theme. This section describes the property types most likely to be associated with this theme, and the associated property types’ relationship to NRHP and local designation criteria.

6.25

Associated Property Types

Specific property types associated with the theme of education within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 are listed below. Of the property categories acknowledged by the National Register (buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects), properties associated with this theme are most likely to be buildings or districts. These might include: 1) School buildings associated with public and private primary and secondary education in Minneapolis. 2) Educational facilities associated with public and private vocational and technical education in Minneapolis. 3) Educational facilities associated with institutions of higher education, including Metropolitan State Junior College (the only public junior college in Minneapolis during the Modern Era), private junior colleges, Metropolitan State (the only state college in Minneapolis during the Modern Era), private colleges and universities, and the University of Minnesota. Buildings on campuses associated with institutions of higher education might encompass a variety of functions, including education, housing, recreation, and research. 4) Properties associated with famous individuals who achieved significance in the fields of primary, secondary, or post-secondary education, including places of residence and work. Associated Properties’ Relationship to National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, properties must have obtained significance for one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following section provides suggestions on how properties associated with the theme of education within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 might be evaluated for significance under these four criteria. The term “subject property” is used to refer to properties associated with this theme. For additional information, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.51 Criterion A: Association with Significant Events

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, subject properties must be “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” These events include 1) “a specific event marking an important moment in American prehistory or history” and 2) “a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation.” Some historic events and trends identified in the education chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 with which subject properties might be associated include 1) the expansion of Minneapolis public school facilities following World War II; 2) the development of Minneapolis’ first public junior college; 3) the development of Minneapolis’ first state college; 4) the growth and development of the University of Minnesota during the Modern Era; 5) the effects of World War II on institutions of higher education, including wartime research and training programs; 6) the effects of the Cold War

51 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf.

6.26

on educational institutions, including increased emphasis on math and science, the expansion of federally-funded research programs at institutions of higher education, and faculty dismissals at institutions of higher education; 7) the passage of the GI Bill and its effect on higher education, including increased enrollment and campus expansion; 8) changing attitudes about college oversight of student life during the Modern Era; and 9) campus activism related to U.S. military engagements, the Civil Rights movement, and gender equality. These events and trends are linked to several Areas of Significance defined by the National Park 52 Service in the National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. These include: • Education: “the process of conveying or acquiring knowledge or skills through systematic instruction, training, or study” • Invention: “the art of originating by experiment or ingenuity an object, system, or concept of practical value” • Social History: “the history of efforts to promote the welfare of society; the history of society and the lifeways of its social groups” Subject properties may be considered for significance under Criterion A within these Areas of Significance. For example, a private vocational school known for pioneering new methods of technical education could be considered for significance under Criterion A within the Area of Significance of Education. The period of significance for a subject property evaluated under Criterion A should reflect the time period during which the property achieved significance. The level of significance will likely be local, though the University of Minnesota’s prominence suggests that the level of significance for a subject property connected with the University could potentially be significant at the state or national level. Criterion B: Association with Significant Persons

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B, properties must be “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” A significant individual is one “whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.” Within the theme of education in the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975, the individual might have achieved significance within the fields of primary, secondary, or post-secondary education. To be significant for association with an individual, a subject property must have been associated with the individual during the time when he or she achieved significance, and the property must be the best illustration of that individual’s achievements. The individual must have directly influenced the conception and/or development of the property, or have lived in the property while making their contributions to their respective fields in Minneapolis. For example, a property significant under Criterion B could include the house in which a famous educator lived, or a school designed by a famous educator. The length of association with the individual in comparison with other associated properties should also be considered. Properties identified as the best representation of an individual’s

52 For a complete list of Areas of Significance, see the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A- Complete.pdf.

6.27

contributions to education in Minneapolis might be eligible under Criterion B in the category of Education, though another category might apply depending on the nature of the individual’s accomplishments. The period of significance should reflect the time period during which the individual achieved significance and was associated with the property. The area of significance would likely be local, although properties associated with individuals with national reputations, such as Dr. Charles Prosser, might demonstrate significance at the state or national level. Properties significant for association with notable architects or contractors should be considered under Criterion C. Criterion C: Design/Construction

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible under Criterion C, properties must “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or…represent the work of a master, or…possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Properties that represent a type, period, or method of construction are those that illustrate, through distinctive features, a particular architectural style or construction method. They might illustrate “the pattern of features common to a particular class of resources, the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, the evolution of that class, or the transition between classes of resources.” These properties might be significant in the Areas of Significance of Engineering, “the practical application of scientific principles to design, construct, and operate equipment, machinery, and structures to serve human needs,” or Architecture, “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs.” For subject properties to be considered eligible under Criterion C in the context of this chapter, they must exemplify design trends, methods of construction, or a class of resources specific to the theme of education. For example, a school building might be nominated under Criterion C for its distinctive features that reflect pedagogical theories and trends in school design during the Modern Era. Properties that appear representative of modern architectural styles or the work of a master (i.e., a notable architect, engineer, or contractor), or that possess high artistic value, should be evaluated within the context of Chapter 9, “Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects.” The level of significance would likely be local. All properties designated under Criterion C should have a period of significance synonymous with their date of construction. Criterion D: Information Potential

To be considered eligible under Criterion D, properties must “have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion D, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the theme of education within this context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their archaeological potential.

6.28

Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion D. Criterion Considerations:

The temporal period of this context study ends in 1975, 45 years from today’s date. Thus, it is possible that some associated properties may have achieved exceptional significance within the past 50 years under Criterion G. Associated Properties’ Relationship to Local Designation Criteria: Criterion 1: Association with Significant Events

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion A (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Association with Significant Persons or Groups

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion B (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 2. Criterion 3: Association with City or Neighborhood Identity

Educational facilities are often closely linked to the identity of a neighborhood. Additionally, the University of Minnesota has shaped the identity of the City of Minneapolis. Thus, it is likely that some subject properties will be eligible for local designation under Criterion 3 for association with neighborhood or city identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

Properties that meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 4. Some properties considered for significance under local Criterion 4 should be evaluated under the themes of Architecture and Architects, discussed in Chapter 9, rather than under the theme of education. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

Some properties that meet National Register Criterion C (see above) as representative of a class of resources might also be eligible under local Criterion 5. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 6.

6.29

7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion 7, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the theme of education within the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion 7 for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion 7. Integrity

To retain integrity, a subject property must retain most or all of the seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that retain integrity will have the ability to communicate their historic significance through their physical features. For more information on integrity, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

6.30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“100 Years of Excellence in Technical Education.” Dunwoody College of Technology Alumni & Friends Magazine, Spring 2014. http://www.dunwoody.edu/pdfs/Alumni-Centennial-Timeline.pdf.

Abler, Ronald, John S. Adams, and John R. Borchert. The Twin Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976.

Anderson, Lauren with John Smoley. Designation Study: Church of the Incarnation. Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, February 14, 2018

Attwater, Isaac, ed. History of the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Part 1. New York, NY: Munsell & Company, 1893.

nd Belgen, Theodore C. Minnesota: A History of the State. 2 ed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1975.

Bright, Farley D. and Ralph R. Doty. A History of the State Department of Education in Minnesota. N.p.: Minnesota Department of Education, c. 1967.

Chambers, Clarke A. “Educating for the Future.” In Minnesota in a Century of Change, edited by Clifford E. Clark, Jr. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1989.

Citizens League. “Citizens League Report on Community Colleges for the Twin Cities Area.” June 28, 1967. https://citizensleague.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/PolicyReportEducationJune-1967.pdf.

Cooper, Arnold. “Beyond the Threshold: Black Students at Moorhead State College, 1968 – 1972.” Minnesota History 51, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 23 – 33. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/51/v51i01p023-033.pdf.

Dornfield, Steven. “The Minnesota Miracle: A Roundtable Discussion.” Minnesota History 60, no. 8 (Winter 2007 – 2008): 312 – 325. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/60/v60i08p312-325.pdf.

Drummond, Steve. “‘Open Schools’ Made Noise in the ‘70s; Now They’re Just Noisy.” All Things Considered, National Public Radio. March 27, 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/03/27/520953343/open-schools-made-noise-in-the- 70s-now-theyre-just-noisy.

Helland, Philip D. Establishment of Public Junior and Community Colleges in Minnesota, 1914 – 1983. [Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Community College System, 1987.

Jarchow, Merrill E. Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society, 1973.

6.31

Kenney, Dave. Twin Cities Album: A Visual History. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

Lass, Wiliam E. “Minnesota State University, Mankato.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified August 13, 2018. http://www.mnopedia.org/place/minnesota-state-university- mankato.

Lehmberg, Stanford and Ann M. Pflaum. The University of Minnesota 1945 – 2000. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.

May, Elaine Tyler. “Cold War Minnesota.” Minnesota History 61, no. 5 (Spring 2009): 218 – 229. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/61/v61i05p218-229.pdf.

Millett, Larry. Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection. Hennepin County Library Digital Collections.

Minneapolis Directory Company. Minneapolis City Directory. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1930, 1935, 1941, 1946, 1950, and 1955.

Minneapolis Morning Tribune

Minneapolis Public Schools Collection. Folder 10, Box 14. James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library.

Minneapolis Public Schools Collection. Hennepin County Library Digital Collections.

Minneapolis Star

Minneapolis Sunday Tribune and Star Journal

Minneapolis Tribune

“Minneapolis Vocational High School and Technical Institute.” In “Special Vocational Education Issue,” special issue, School Bulletin no. 13, November 26, 1951.

Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission. Minnesota Private Higher Education. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission, 1970.

“Minnesota Modern Registry.” Docomomo-us-mn.org. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html.

Mitau, G. Theodore. Minnesota’s Colleges of Opportunity: From Normal School to Teachers College and State University System – A Century of Academic Change in Minnesota. [Minneapolis].: Alumni Associations of the Minnesota State University System, 1977.

6.32

“Moderne Style, 1930 – 1950.” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide. Accessed May 8, 2020. http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/moderne.html.

R. L. Polk & Co. Polk’s Minneapolis City Directory. St. Paul, MN: R. L. Polk & Co., 1961, 1966, 1970, and 1975.

Rossinow, Doug. “Tradition, Schism, and Continuity in Minnesota’s Communities of Faith.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last updated November 30, 2018. http://www.mnopedia.org/tradition-schism-and-continuity-minnesota-s-communities- faith.

United States Department of Justice. Equal Access to Education: Forty Years of Title IX. June 23, 2012. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2012/06/20/titleixreport.pdf.

“Vocational Senior High School.” c. 1963. https://mpshistory.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/pff-1963- vocationalsenior.pdf.

Weber, Laura. “Talmud Torah, Minneapolis.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last updated November 7, 2016. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/talmud-torah-minneapolis.

Wright, C. Ben. “For the Better Performance of Life’s Duties,” Dunwoody College of Technology, The First Century. [Minneapolis, MN]: Dunwoody College of Technology, 2013.

Zellie, Carole. Minneapolis Public Schools Historic Context Study. Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, April 2005.

6.33

CHAPTER SEVEN

Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1975. Minnesota Historical Society.

RELIGION

List of Figures

Figure 7.1: First Baptist Church, March 6, 1931. 7.3 Figure 7.2: Sharei Zedeck Synagogue, 1948. 7.5 Figure 7.3: Billy Graham at the Minneapolis Auditorium, September 1950. 7.7 Figure 7.4: Westminster Presbyterian Church, September 10, 1937. 7.10 Figure 7.5: St. Austin Catholic Church, September 30, 1951. 7.12 Figure 7.6: Christ Church Lutheran, November 8, 1980. 7.13 Figure 7.7: St. Francis Cabrini Church, October 12, 1953. 7.14 Figure 7.8: Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1975. 7.15 Figure 7.9: Newman Center, August 26, 1953. 7.17 Figure 7.10: Temple of Islam, August 30, 1959. 7.22 Figure 7.11: Minnesota Zen Center, January 21, 1975. 7.24

RELIGION

During the Modern Era, shifting residential patterns in the metropolitan area influenced the locations of new synagogues, churches, and other houses of worship within Minneapolis. As modernism became an increasingly popular style for religious buildings, the city’s religious architecture reflected the new design aesthetic. In the later years of the Modern Era, increasing ethnic and religious diversity brought new dimensions to Minneapolis’s religious atmosphere. Though the city’s longstanding Christian and Jewish religious traditions continued, the visibility of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and other religions increased with the arrival of new immigrants and the changing beliefs of native Minneapolis residents. The legacy of religion in Minneapolis is visible in the sites associated with the growth of minority religions, often somewhat hidden in the city’s landscape, as well as numerous houses of worship, many of which continue to be utilized as religious spaces. 1930 – 1945 Christianity

As elsewhere in the United States, Christianity was the most visible component of the religious landscape of Minneapolis at the outset of the Modern Era. By 1938, a study noted that the city was “well provided with churches, 290 of which are Protestant [and] 27 Roman Catholic.” Lutheran churches, which had grown since the late 1800s with the arrival of Scandinavian immigrants, accounted for the majority of church membership.1 The 1940 Minneapolis City Directory grouped the city’s numerous churches under a wide variety of denominational categories: Advent Christian, Adventist, Apostolic, Baptist, Catholic (Greek), Catholic (Liberal), Christian, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of Christ, Church of Christ Scientist, Congregational, Episcopal, Evangelical, Evangelical Free, Free Methodist, Friends, Latter Day Saints, Lutheran, Methodist, Mission, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Spiritualist, Swedish Mission Covenant of America, Unitarian, United Brethren, Unity, Universalist, and Undenominational.2 In 1944, a study of Minneapolis churches found approximately 345 churches and synagogues within the city. Of these, 288 were Protestant, 39 were Roman Catholic, 11 were Jewish synagogues, and 7 were Eastern Orthodox. In Minneapolis and the adjacent area, the five major Lutheran denominations outnumbered all other major denominations with a total of 91

1 The WPA Guide to Minnesota, (1938; San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 2014), 213; H. Paul Douglass, Minneapolis Churches: A Brief Study of their Institutional Aspects (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1944), 16; John S. Adams and Barbara J. VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul: People, Place and Public Life (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), 68 – 71. 2 Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1940), 2208 - 2210.

7.1

congregations, followed by Methodists (37), Northern Convention Baptist (29), Presbyterian (25), Congregational (22), and Episcopal (15).3

Since the establishment of Minneapolis in the mid-1800s, the expansion of the central business district and decentralization of residential districts had gradually pushed churches out of the downtown area towards the homes of their members. A 1935 study noted that “with the exception of those few that purposefully maintain downtown locations as evangelistic centers, the churches follow the movements of their parishioners.” Those that decided to stay in the central city included Westminster Presbyterian Church (1897, later additions/alterations, 1200 Marquette Avenue South), which added a parish house to its downtown location in 1936. First Baptist Church (1886, 1021 Hennepin Avenue) also remained downtown.4 On the other hand, the first Minneapolis location of Mayflower Community Congregational Church (1936, 5500 Stevens Avenue South) was representative of the churches being constructed in newly developing areas at the city’s expanding edges during the early decades of the twentieth century.5 A 1944 report on Minneapolis’s Protestant churches noted that most of these churches were “highly localized institutions with relatively compact parishes;” however, the study speculated that Protestant churches located in the central city drew from areas outside of their immediate neighborhoods for their membership.6

During the first decades of the twentieth century, the atmosphere of Christianity in Minneapolis and across the nation was influenced by the conflict between “modernists” and “fundamentalists.” Debates regarding the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, the relationship between modern philosophy, science, and social science and Christianity, and the church’s involvement in social issues divided Protestant Christians, and some similar debates between liberals and conservatives were present in Catholicism as well. The pastor of Minneapolis’ First Baptist Church (the largest Baptist church in the state by 1937), William Bell Riley, was a national leader in the anti-evolution campaign and the organization of the American fundamentalism movement during the 1920s. Riley’s influence extended into the three conservative schools he founded – Northwestern Bible and Missionary Training School (1902), Northwestern Evangelical Seminary (1938), and Northwestern College (1944) – as well as the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association that he established. By midcentury, the schools owned several buildings around Loring Park, including the Northwestern Schools buildings along Willow Street (c. 1906 and c. 1946, razed 1978 and 1986, 42 – 50 Willow

3 Douglass, Minneapolis Churches, 18 – 19. 4 Calvin F. Schmid, Social Saga of the Twin Cities: An Ecological and Statistical Study of Social Trends in Minneapolis and St. Paul Monograph Series No. 1 ([Minneapolis?]: Minneapolis Council of Social Agencies, Bureau of Social Research, 1937), 32, 51; The WPA Guide to Minnesota, (1938; San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 2014), 213, citations refer to the 2014 Trinity University Press edition; Marion Daniel Shutter, History of Minneapolis: Gateway to the Northwest, vol. 1 (Minneapolis: S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1923), 575. 5 Ross Sanderson, The Strategy of Church Planning (New York: Institute of Social and Religious Research, 1932), 11, quoted in Schmid, Social Saga, 49; “Context: Religion, 1850 – 1950,” in Thomas R. Zahn & Associates, Preservation Plan for the City of Minneapolis (prepared for the City of Minneapolis, 1991), 13. 6 Douglass, Minneapolis Churches, 6.

7.2

Street). During the 1930s, Riley actively opposed communism and gained a reputation for anti- Semitism and fascism. He continued as a prominent religious leader until his death in 1947.7

Figure 7.1 First Baptist Church at 1021 Hennepin Avenue was the church of nationally-known fundamentalist pastor William Bell Riley during the 1930s. First Baptist Church, March 6, 1931. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

7 Ferenc M. Szasz, “William B. Riley and the Fight Against Teaching of Evolution in Minnesota,” Minnesota History 41, no. 5 (Spring 1969), 201 – 204; C. Allyn Russell, “William Bell Riley: Architect of Fundamentalism,” Minnesota History 43, no. 1 (Spring 1972), 14 – 16; Richard M. Chapman, “Religious Belief and Behavior,” in Minnesota in a Century of Change, ed. Clifford E. Clark, Jr. (St. Paul, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1989), 523 – 526; Edwin Gaustad and Leigh Schmidt, The Religious History of America (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2002), 291 - 321; Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day (New York: Harper Collins, 2010), 475 – 476; Richard Kyle, The Religious Fringe: A History of Alterative Religions in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 103 – 106.

7.3

Economic and political developments during the 1930s and 40s also drew varying responses from American churches. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, leaders of mainstream Christian denominations began to support increased government intervention in society (such as social security, unemployment insurance, and antitrust laws), even as some lay persons within these denomination accused them of Communism. In the years leading up to World War II, major Protestant denominations debated pacifism and American involvement in the looming conflict, though pacifism had become a minority position by the end of the war.8 Judaism

In 1930, Minneapolis’s religious community was distinguished by a significant Jewish population. German-speaking Jews had arrived in the city as early as the 1860s, while Eastern European Jews began to immigrate in large numbers around the turn of the twentieth century. By the mid-1930s, the city’s 16,280 Jews made up 3.5% of its population. The largest concentration of Jewish residents was in North Minneapolis, with two smaller Jewish communities located in south and southwest Minneapolis. Following World War I, Jewish Minneapolitans experienced increasing discrimination that limited options for employment, housing, and civic/social participation. During the 1930s, various organizations worked to combat these barriers, including the Anti-Defamation Council of Minneapolis, formed in 1936 (later Minnesota Jewish Council and the Jewish Community Relations Council); the Council of Jewish Women; the Jewish Free Employment Bureau, formed in the early twentieth century but expanded during the Great Depression (later known as the Jewish Employment Service and managed by Jewish Family Welfare Association); and the Jewish Family Welfare Association. Employment discrimination and prejudice remained obvious through the early 1940s, though attitudes and practices began to gradually change after World War II, influenced by the publicizing of job discrimination by the Jewish press and Jewish leaders and changing attitudes towards discrimination of religious and racial minorities.9

By 1930, Jewish communities in Minneapolis were served by eleven synagogues, part of a “second generation” of Jewish institutions constructed between the 1920s and the 1940s. For example, the Sharei Zedeck Synagogue (1936, 1119 Morgan Avenue North) was constructed in North Minneapolis in 1936. In addition to synagogues, Jewish residents established many educational, social, political, and international relief organizations, with 94 distinct organizations existing in Minneapolis by 1936. Among these was the Emanuel Cohen Center, with its first location (1924, 809 Elwood Avenue) and second location (1939, 1701 Oak Park Avenue) in North Minneapolis.

8 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2:478 – 481; W. Edward Oser, “World War II and the Pacifist Controversy,” American Studies 14, no. 2 (Fall 1973), 5 – 8, 20 – 21. 9 Rhoda G. Lewin, “Stereotype and Reality in the Jewish Immigrant Experience in Minneapolis,” Minnesota History 46, no. 7 (Fall 1979), 263 – 264; Laura E. Weber, “‘Gentiles Preferred:’ Minneapolis Jews and Employment, 1920 – 1950,” Minnesota History 52, no. 5 (Spring 1991): 167 - 182; Laura Weber, “From Exclusion to Integration: The Story of Jews in Minnesota,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified January 8, 2019, https://www.mnopedia.org/exclusion-integration-story-jews- minnesota; Garneth O. Peterson, “Jewish Settlement in Minneapolis, 1860s – 1972,” in Thomas R. Zahn & Associates, Preservation Plan for the City of Minneapolis (prepared for the City of Minneapolis, August 1991).

7.4

The incorporation of the Minneapolis Federation for Jewish Service in 1930 helped to integrate the efforts of the numerous Jewish organizations in the city.10

By the 1930s, Minneapolis Jews were divided between Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative congregations, with the majority of Jews attending Orthodox synagogues. Reform Judaism, which deemphasized the ethnic and cultural distinctiveness of Jews in America (and the idea of Jewish nationhood), was centered in Temple Israel (1928, 2324 Emerson Avenue South). Adath Jeshrun (1927, 3400 Dupont Avenue South) represented the moderate position, Conservative Judaism, which sought to preserve but also modify traditional Judaism for a modern age.11

Figure 7.2 Sharei Zedeck Synagogue, constructed at 1119 Morgan Avenue North in 1936, was part of a second generation of Jewish institutions constructed between the 1920s and 1940s. Sharei Zedeck Synagogue, 1948. Minneapolis Star Tribune Journal, Minnesota Historical Society.

10 Landscape Research, North Minneapolis: Minneapolis Historic Context Study (prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission and the Minneapolis Planning Department, 1998), 28; Hyman Berman and Linda Mack Schloff, Jews in Minnesota (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 2002), 28 – 30; Peterson, “Jewish Settlement in Minneapolis,” in Thomas R. Zahn & Associates, Preservation Plan for the City of Minneapolis, 1; Minneapolis Directory Company, Minneapolis City Directory (Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1930), 2168 – 2169. 11 Berman and Schloff, Jews in Minnesota, 25 – 27.

7.5

The “Small Church”

Across the United States, the Great Depression slowed new construction of religious buildings to a trickle. Though some congregations attempted to finish the building projects they had begun before the stock market crash of 1929, construction of religious structures dropped during the early 1930s to a low of $22,000,000 in the United States in 1933. During the 1930s, some congregations closed or sold their buildings, and denominations limited the planning of new missions in an attempt to focus resources on existing congregations. In some cases, worshippers constructed basements with the intention to complete their buildings once economic prosperity returned; in other cases, small or portable buildings were the solution to Depression-era needs. In Minneapolis, the years 1929 – 1935 were particularly challenging for the city’s churches, which struggled to pay salaries and mortgages.

During the lull in building, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish denominations (continuing a conversation about new forms of church worship and architecture begun during the 1920s) called for a new approach to church and synagogue design. New ideas and goals for religious buildings coalesced in a concept known as the “small church” – a building that was more modest but of a higher quality than those of the previous decade. “Small church” advocates recommended the use of local materials for construction, but economical alternatives such as concrete, rubber, terrazzo, and glass block were also employed. By the late 1930s, the construction industry began to recover and new houses of worship were constructed; in 1941, a total of $62,000,000 was spent on American religious buildings. An example of an early 1940s religious building constructed in Minneapolis was St. Matthew’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (1941, razed, 41st Avenue North and Washington Avenue North in 1941). However, the restrictions imposed by World War II quickly brought an end to the era of the “small church.”12 1945 – 1975: CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM Trends and Movements

In the decades following World War II, religion became an increasingly prominent component of American life. Religious engagement was attractive to newly-formed families (the product of the postwar “Baby Boom”), and to those seeking security and identity in the era of the atomic bomb and the corrosion of ethnic and regional identities. Between 1940 and 1963, American membership in religious organizations increased from 40% of the country’s population to 63%. Estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1957 placed the number of Protestants at 70 million, Catholics at 30 million, and Jews at 4 million out of the country’s total population of 120 million.13

The landscape of American religion during the postwar era was influenced both by movements within religious traditions and by external political, economic, and social developments. Across the

12 Jay M. Price, Temples for a Modern God: Religious Architecture in Postwar America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 21 – 47, 129; Larry Millett, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities (St Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 303; “Context: Religion, 1850 – 1950,” 13; “To Be Dedicated,” Minneapolis Star Journal, October 4, 1941. 13 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 49 – 62; Gaustad and Schmidt, The Religious History of America, 341.

7.6

U.S., a new conservatism or neoevangelicalism emerged as an alternative to fundamental and liberal strains of Christianity. The evangelist Billy Graham, the most visible leader of this postwar evangelicalism, founded the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in Minneapolis at 620 Harmon Place in 1950.14 The postwar era also saw the rise of preachers who promoted a message of self- confidence and emphasized religion as a means of individual fulfillment and healing. Notable leaders of this movement included Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen, Rabbi Joshua Liebman, and Dutch Reformed 15 pastor Norman Vincent Peale (the author of The Power of Positive Thinking). Fear of communist take-over during the 1950s also affected the religious climate. The anti-Communist crusades of Joseph McCarthy, while supported by some Catholics and conservative Protestant Christians, drew opposition from liberal Jews and Christians, and some liberal church leaders were accused of Communist leanings.16

Within Judaism, declining membership in Orthodox congregations encouraged the denomination to become more integrated into the American community, both in Minneapolis and across the nation. After 1940, Reform Judaism’s orientation to community and social justice drew large numbers to Temple Israel in Minneapolis. Concurrently, Reform congregations became more accepting of traditional Jewish practices and culture.17

Within African American churches, black clergymen played an integral role in the Civil Rights movement, most notably Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (during the war and immediate post-war years) and Martin Luther King Jr. (during the late 1950s and early 1960s). The Christian inspiration of the civil rights movement was partially responsible for its expansion, led by Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, beyond racial lines to other minorities and the poor. As noted by historian Justos L. Gonzalez, “the entire [civil rights] movement found much of its inspiration in the Christian faith of the black community. The old “spirituals” gained new meaning – or rather, they were given once again the defiant meaning they had when first sung in the old plantations. Churches became gathering and training places for protestors. Preachers articulated the connection between the gospel and the movement.” The era also saw the emergence of a “black theology,” most notably espoused by James Cone, that “was both essentially orthodox and an affirmation of the black reality, hope and struggle.”18

14 By 1996, 620 Harmon Place was the location of the Loring Café. It is unclear if the building that housed the Billy Graham Evangelical Association (BGEA) is extant. By 1964, the BGEA operated out of a complex at 1300 Harmon Place, which appears to have been razed. See Kay Miller, “Team Graham: It All Began as a Shoebox Operation,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 19, 1996 and “Letters…We Get Letters,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, June 7, 1964. 15 Chapman, “Religious Belief and Behavior,” 525; Gaustad and Schmidt, The Religious History of America, 335 – 339; Doug Rossinow, “Tradition, Schism, and Continuity in Minnesota’s Communities of Faith,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified November 30, 2018, https://www.mnopedia.org/tradition-schism-and-continuity-minnesota-s-communities-faith. 16 Robert P. Erickson, “The Role of American Churches in the McCarthy Era,” Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte 3, no. 1 (1990): 45 -58, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43750635; Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2:482. 17 Berman and Schloff, Jews in Minnesota, 27 – 28. 18 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2:486 – 487.

7.7

Figure 7.1 Postwar evangelist Billy Graham established the Billy Graham Evangelical Association in Minneapolis in 1950. Billy Graham at the Minneapolis Auditorium, September 1950, Minneapolis Tribune, Minnesota Historical Society.

Within the Catholic church, the postwar era saw an increasing openness to and engagement with the modern world. Though some Catholics had opposed the Church’s condemnation and wholesale rejection of modern trends during the first half of the twentieth century, it was not until the

7.8 pontificate of Pope John XXIII (1958 until 1963) that significant change occurred. Pope John XXIII encouraged the church to respond to the social, economic, and political issues of the modern era with understanding rather than condemnation, called for the protection of human rights and establishment of world peace, and encouraged a spirit of ecumenism with non-Catholic denominations.19

Most significantly, in 1962 the pope called the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965), the Catholic church’s first ecumenical council since the mid-1800s. Emphasizing the modernization or updating of the church (aggiornamento), the council (known as Vatican II) called for religious freedom, stressed unity with other Christian denominations, and repudiated anti-Semitism. The council’s Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) instituted significant changes to the liturgy, including the inclusion of more vernacular language and less Latin; changes to the order of Mass to make the purposes and connections of its various parts clear to parishioners; and the establishment of commissions on sacred liturgy, sacred literature, and sacred art at each diocese. It also encouraged the use of art contemporary to the time period.20

The ecumenism expressed by Pope John XXIII and the Vatican II was reflective of another postwar trend towards greater connection across denominational barriers. In Minnesota and across the country, mainline Protestant denominations were heavily involved in the ecumenical movement, symbolized by the formation of the Minnesota Council of Churches in 1947. During the 1960s, the council expanded to include Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox congregations, and Catholics began to participate in some of the organization’s programs.21 The Minneapolis Council of Churches (founded in 1927 as the Minneapolis Church Federation) represented an important ecumenical organization in the city during the postwar era.22

During the 1960s and early 1970s, liberal religious activism, both Christian and Jewish, found expression in the pressing social and political issues of the era: civil rights for minority or oppressed groups, opposition to the Vietnam war, and environmental protection.23 In Minneapolis, the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches was an early advocate for social justice and human rights, and became increasingly engaged in social activism during the middle and later twentieth century. For example, during the early 1960s, it participated in efforts to eliminate housing discrimination.24 Some

19 Chapman, “Religious Belief and Behavior,” 528 – 529; Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2:441 – 444. 20 Gaustad and Schmidt, The Religious History of America, 344 – 348; Price, Temples for a Modern God, 152 – 153; Thomas Buffer, “The American Liturgical Movement, Social Justice, and Architectural Change,” Antiphon 20.3 (2016): 241 – 252; Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2:443 - 445; Jordan G. Teicher, “Why Is Vatican II So Important?” NPR, October 10, 2012, https://www.npr.org/2012/10/10/162573716/why-is-vatican-ii-so-important. 21 Chapman, “Religious Belief and Behavior,” 528 – 530 22 “Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches,” Minnesota Historical Society, accessed November 9, 2019, http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00416.xml. 23 Gaustad and Schmidt, The Religious History of America, 398 – 401. 24 “Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches,” Minnesota Historical Society, accessed November 9, 2019, http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00416.xml; Annual Report of the Greater Twin Cities Council of Churches, ([Minneapolis?]: Greater Twin Cities Council of Churches, 1960), 10 – 11.

7.9 younger conservative congregations also embraced an increased social activism. According to historian Richard M. Chapman, this “development moved some congregations that were in the tradition of post-World War II evangelicalism – whether Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical Free, or Lutheran – closer to mainline Protestants and Catholics who had longer social-justice traditions.” Chapman notes that Park Avenue Methodist Church (c. 1911, 3400 Park Avenue) in Minneapolis, “traditional in theology but promoting a progressive social agenda and a message of racial reconciliation, represented an example of the young evangelical spirit.”25

Figure 7.2 Westminster Presbyterian Church’s election of its first two female elders in 1972 represented new trends among major Protestant denominations as gender roles shifted during the Modern Era. Westminster Presbyterian Church, September 10, 1937. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

As the postwar feminist movement gained strength during the postwar era, major Protestant denominations began to ordain women and accommodate changing gender roles, while conservative evangelical Protestant denominations, Pentecostal churches, and the leadership of the Catholic church adhered to fixed, distinct roles for men and women. In Minneapolis, the first two female elders at Westminster Presbyterian Church were elected in 1970 and the first female

25 Chapman, “Religious Belief and Behavior,” 532.

7.10

deacons in 1972. At Mount Olive Lutheran Church (1931, 1957 addition, 3045 Chicago Avenue South), female members of the congregation received voting rights in 1972.26 Design and Function

The increased religious engagement of the postwar era was represented visually by a construction boom of religious buildings. Though new construction was not limited to the suburbs, a key factor driving the building boom was suburbanization, which moved urbanites away from old places of worship in downtown areas and encouraged the construction of new religious facilities in outlying areas to serve the Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish residents of the new subdivisions.27 As historian Justo L. Gonzalez notes, “the 1950s and the early 1960s were the great age of U.S. church architecture, with affluent congregations financing the building of vast and beautiful sanctuaries, educational buildings, and other facilities.”28

The designs of religious buildings constructed after World War II reflected the new aesthetics and demands of the era as well as an increased emphasis on religious buildings as community gathering places. Postwar parking requirements led to new layouts for postwar churches. By the 1950s, the typical church layout included a narthex facing a parking lot located on the interior of the site, with the chancel facing the street. The functional main entrance was located at the parking lot, and the narthex was sometimes expanded into a transitional lobby which provided access to the worship space or classrooms and social rooms. Attractive landscaping became an important part of new site development, with signs and tall steeples utilized to increase visibility.29

In conjunction with the postwar trend towards participation in groups and organizations, American religious buildings were increasingly viewed and designed as social centers. Buildings were designed to provide flexible space for ceremonies, libraries, Sunday schools and weekday education, meetings and events, meals, and recreation. Educational space for children was a key component of the post- war church, and historian Jay Price notes that “many churches and synagogues in the middle decades of the twentieth century mirrored schools in overall appearance and layout.”30 In the immediate postwar era, compact designs that borrowed from the interwar era were used to combine educational, social, and worship space. By the 1950s, religious facilities became less compact and spread out across their sites, mimicking trends in domestic and educational architecture. One-story buildings without entrance steps were often employed.31

26 Living Faith: Stories from the First 150 Years (Minneapolis: Westminster Presbyterian Church, 2007), 100; Michael J. Lansing, The Faith of Our Forebears: 100 Years at Mount Olive Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Mount Olive Lutheran Church, 2009), 38, 45, 77; Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2:487; Doug Rossinow, “Tradition, Schism, and Continuity in Minnesota’s Communities of Faith,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified November 30, 2018, https://www.mnopedia.org/tradition-schism-and-continuity-minnesota-s-communities-faith. 27 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 49 – 62. 28 Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2:482. 29 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 58 – 60, 77. 30 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 76. 31 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 64 – 77.

7.11

Figure 7.3 Hope Lutheran Church, constructed in 1958, displays a number of the design elements employed in postwar religious architecture, including an on-site parking lot and tall steeple. Hope Lutheran Church, 1958. Minneapolis Star.

The social and educational functions of Minneapolis churches during the Modern Era is reflected in a 1965 survey of 177 of the city’s churches by the Community Health and Welfare Council. The survey noted that the majority of Minneapolis churches provided recreation, social, and religious programs for youth as well as adults. Most churches contained meeting space to accommodate groups of 100 or more, and offered that space to groups outside of the church.32 The history of Minneapolis’s Mayflower Community Church illustrates the role of the church as a social and educational center. During the 1950s and 60s, organized activities ranged from an annual congregational picnic started in 1950, a couples’ club organized in 1952, and the Mayflower Retired

32 Research Department of the Community Health and Welfare Council, Profile: Social Services of Minneapolis Churches, (Minneapolis: Research Department of the Community Health and Welfare Council, December 1965), 1 – 11.

7.12

Men’s Club, established in 1963.33 In the early 1960s, educational and social programming for church youth included progressive suppers, hayrides, parents’ nights, canoe trips, Wednesday junior high youth nights, and many other programs.34

Many of the new religious buildings constructed after World War II were designed in modern architectural styles. Before the midcentury era, most churches in Minnesota featured historic styles such as Classical, Romanesque, and Gothic Revival. One of the earliest examples of modernist religious architecture in Minneapolis was St. Austin Catholic Church (1939, razed 1963, 3800 Washburn Avenue North), which featured white stucco, parabolic arches constructed of laminated wood trusses, and minimal ornamentation.35

Figure 7.4 St. Austin Catholic Church (razed), constructed in 1939, was one of the earliest examples of a modern-style church constructed in Minnesota. St. Austin Catholic Church, September 30, 1951. Minneapolis Star Journal Tribune, Minnesota Historical Society.

33 The Mayflower Journey, 1925 – 2000 (Minneapolis: Mayflower Community Church, 2000), 7, 13, 17, 29, 30 – 31; “History,” The Museum of Russian Art, accessed November 7, 2019, https://tmora.org/about/history/. 34 The Mayflower Journey, 13, 28. 35 Larry Millett, Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 215 – 217; Gretchen Buggeln, The Suburban Church: Modernism and Community in Postwar America (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), xiii – xix. Architectural historian Larry Millett states that St. Austin Catholic Church was the second “modernist” church built in Minnesota before World War II. See Millett, Minnesota Modern, 215.

7.13

Historian Rolf T. Anderson notes that “beginning in the 1940s, famous European modernists like Eliel Saarinen received important church and synagogue commissions in America and created designs that often contradicted with the stark coldness of early modernism.”36 In Minneapolis, Christ Church Lutheran (1949, 1962 addition, 3244 34th Avenue South) was a highly influential building that served as a prototype for postwar church design in Minnesota and elsewhere. Its flat roof, plain walls, and simplicity display elements of the European/International style that shaped “modern” American religious architecture into the late 1940s. Designed by nationally-recognized modernist architect Eliel Saarinen, the church drew widespread acclaim and provided a model for the modified, brick box church popular during the immediate postwar era. One local example to draw from Saarinen’s masterpiece was the First Christian Church (1954, 2201 First Avenue South) in the Whittier neighborhood. The First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis (1951, 900 Mt. Curve Avenue) designed by well-known local architects Roy Thorshov and Robert Cerny, is another variation on the “brick box” church. The building’s massing, composed of multiple boxes, imitated school construction and eliminated external references to traditional religious architecture.37

36 National Register of Historic Places, Christ Church Lutheran, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Historic Landmark Nomination #01000654, p. 15. 37 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 217 – 222; Marjorie Pearson, Penny Petersen, and Charlene Roise, The Evolution of the Whittier Neighborhood (Prepared for The Whittier Alliance, 2009), 32; Price, Temples for a Modern God, 129 – 130.

7.14

Figure 7.5 Christ Church Lutheran (1949), designed by renowned modernist architect Eliel Saarinen, provided a model for postwar churches in Minneapolis and across the United States. Christ Church Lutheran, November 8, 1980. Minneapolis Tribune.

By the mid-1950s, the “Modern Gothic” style had emerged as an alternative to the European/International style. According to historian Jay Price, this stylized version of the Medieval church was “unmistakably modern in design, but kept enough of the features of ‘traditional’ church architecture, albeit in stylized form, to still ‘look like a church.’”38 In this style, the longitudinal basilican plan of Medieval churches, which fit well with the Protestant and Catholic focus on liturgical, sacramental worship during midcentury, was combined with short walls and steeply- pitched roofs. A-frame, stylized English Gothic churches were so popular in Minnesota during the late 1940s and 1950s that almost every Minnesota community contains at least one example. Though

38 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 131.

7.15 this design was most popular for Protestant congregations (which had historically favored English Gothic churches), the Catholic St. Francis Cabrini Church (1948, 1500 Franklin Avenue Southeast) in Minneapolis was one of the state’s earliest examples. Modern Gothic fit well with the ecumenical focus of the postwar era, as it emphasized spirituality and Americanism over specific religious traditions, but provided flexibility to meet the needs of a variety of traditions.39

Figure 7.6 St. Francis Cabrini Church is one of the earliest examples of the A-frame, stylized English Gothic church in Minnesota. St. Francis Cabrini Church, October 12, 1953. Minneapolis Star Journal Tribune, Minnesota Historical Society.

Yet, Modern Gothic was not employed evenly across all religious groups. During the 1950s, the Roman Catholic Church in Minnesota was less enthusiastic about modernism than Protestant churches; consequently, some of the largest Catholic churches displayed traditional styles, such as the Romanesque Revival-style St. Charles Borromeo (1959) located in St. Anthony Village at 2739 NE Stinson Parkway. Jewish Americans also found the style’s references to medieval Christianity problematic, such as the abstract stained-glass designs that alluded to medieval churches.40 During the 1950s, some Minnesota congregations also opted to construct modernist designs outside of the

39 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 126 – 145; Millet, Minnesota Modern, 215, 222. 40 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 227.

7.16

standard brick box and A-frame varieties, such as the First Methodist Church in Hopkins, Minnesota (1954), which featured an enormous five-story brick tower in the style of 1950s roadside signs.41

During the 1960s, the designs of religious buildings began to reflect the expressive nature of the later phase of Midcentury Modernism architecture. As noted by architectural historian Larry Millett, “churches and synagogues built in the 1960s more often than not reflected the kinetic spirit of the time. There were circular, oval, polygonal, and trapezoidal churches; churches with folded, battered, or angular walls; churches with steeply sloped, barrel-vaulted, butter-fly, upthrust, or shed roofs.”42 In Minneapolis, Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church (1967, 1221 Seventh Avenue North) reflects the dynamic designs of some 1960s religious buildings. The Beth El Synagogue (1968) at 5225 Barry Street West in St. Louis Park, constructed in 1968 to provide a new suburban home for Minneapolis’ Beth El congregation, also reflects the strong visual statements of 1960s modern religious architecture.43

Figure 7.7 Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church is an example of the expressive nature of modern church designs during the 1960s. Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1975. Minnesota Historical Society.

41 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 224. 42 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 240. 43 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 234, 240.

7.17

Another key development in 1960s religious architecture was driven by a desire to foster a sense of communal worship. Price notes that “where the religious designers of the 1950s looked to the grandeur of medieval Christendom as a model for faith and practice (and architecture), their 1960s colleagues looked even further back in time to the historical root of Christianity as a small group of believers who worshipped in modest settings.”44 Rather than an ornamented hall in which worshippers watched an unfolding performance, designers envisioned sanctuaries as intimate, plain gathering spaces. The prevailing form of Protestant and Catholic churches constructed during the 1950s, the longitudinal, basilican plan with an entry area (narthex), elongated nave with seating, and elevated chancel with altar, was unsuited to this new ideology. During the 1960s, designers turned instead to what was known as the central plan, in which the altar was placed in the center of the worship space, surrounded by seating. The plan shortened the gap between worshippers and the altar, and evoked a picture of members gathered around a common table. Though designers experimented with a variety of sanctuary shapes (wedge-shaped, semi-circular, and trapezoid) and layouts (expanded transepts, Greek crosses, and square naves), by the late 1960s, the circular church with a center spire was common, especially in the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations. This new layout also worked well for Conservative and Orthodox Jewish congregations, who had traditionally preferred to locate the bimah at the center of the worship space.45 One of the most notable examples of the central plan in Minnesota, Vinje Lutheran in Wilmar, Minnesota, was designed in 1963 by the firm of Sövik, Mathre, and Madson. Northfield architect Edward Sövik was an influential advocate of the central plan concept, and his book Architecture for Worship (1973) became a seminal work for a new style of flexible, simple, open worship space.46

During the 1960s, the architecture of Roman Catholic churches was significantly influenced by the American liturgical movement, which began in the country in the mid-1920s but continued through the postwar era. The leaders of the movement believed that deeper understanding of and participation in the liturgy would serve to reform the individual and allow the church to work towards the resolution of social injustice. In an effort to make the Mass more accessible to the average layperson and encourage more active and corporate participation in liturgy, leaders of the movement called for change in the external forms of Catholic worship.47 The resolutions that emerged from Vatican II (1962 – 1965) authorized the implementation of the principles of the American Liturgical Movement, which had noticeable implications for church art and architecture. Several changes in the layout of Catholic churches were implemented to break down the distance between the priest and the layperson, and to encourage active and communal participation in worship: 1) the removal of “high” altars and reredos and the relocation of the altar to decrease distance from worshippers and to allow for Mass facing the laity; 2) the removal of gates and

44 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 149 – 150. 45 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 147 – 152; Millet, Minnesota Modern, 234, 240. 46 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 244; Price, Temples for a Modern God, 155 – 156. 47 Buffer, “The American Liturgical Movement, Social Justice, and Architectural Change,” 241 – 252.

7.18 communion rails; and 3) the removal or relocation of architectural features or artwork that encouraged individual rather than corporate worship (such as shrines and stations).48

Figure 7.8 In 1967, the Newman Center at 1701 University Avenue Southeast remodeled its chapel to reflect new principles for worship promoted by the Catholic Church. Newman Center, August 26, 1953. Minneapolis Star Journal Tribune, Minnesota Historical Society.

In the Twin Cities, the ideas that coalesced at Vatican II resulted in changes to Catholic church worship and design. A 1967 article in the Minneapolis Tribune noted that the Newman Center (1950, razed 2012, 1701 Southeast University Avenue) at the University of Minnesota had remodeled its chapel, relocating the altar to the center to “include the gradual involvement of everyone in the mass.”49

48 Buffer, “The American Liturgical Movement, Social Justice, and Architectural Change,” 252 – 261. 49 Mike Hill, “Catholics in Cities Forge New Paths,” Minneapolis Tribune, April 23, 1967; “Newman Center Collection,” University of Minnesota, accessed November 13, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/14/resources/1568.

7.19

Location

Within Minneapolis, most new churches constructed during the immediate postwar era were built at the edges of the city, where the last remaining sections of open land were being developed with housing. For example, the construction of the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd (1950, 4801 France Avenue South) at the southwestern edge of Minneapolis reflects the residential development of the few sections of open land remaining in the Southwest community of South Minneapolis after World War II.50 In St. Anthony Village, just outside of the city’s northeastern corner, St. Charles Borromeo (1959) was constructed at 2739 NE Stinson Parkway.51

The immigration of some eastern European groups into Minneapolis following World War II spurred the expansion of some established churches, such as St. Constantine’s Ukrainian Catholic Church (construction date unknown, 515 University Avenue Northeast), which constructed a new school in 1952. By 1950, two Greek Catholic and six Greek Orthodox congregations were located in the city, primarily in northeast Minneapolis; St. Mary’s Greek Orthodox Church (3450 Irving Avenue South, 2001 addition) was constructed for one of these congregations in 1957.52 Though numbers remained relatively small,53 an increase in Chinese immigration during the late 1940s and early 1950s led to the establishment of Sunday afternoon religious programs for Chinese-Americans at Westminster Presbyterian Church. The church’s connection with Chinese Americans had begun during the late nineteenth century, and scholar Sarah Mason notes that “in the postwar years…the church again served as a social and religious center for recent Chinese immigrants and their families.” In 1949, a Bible study group led by Chinese students was established at the University of Minnesota (renamed the Chinese Christian Fellowship in 1958). After outgrowing two locations near the University of Minnesota, the group moved to an elementary school building in Lauderdale in 1975.54

The Catholic church expanded greatly in the Twin Cities during the postwar era, forming new parishes and constructing new churches, schools, rectories, and convents; twenty new parishes were established in the Twin Cities area between 1945 and 1951. In an era of high demand, some new parishes constructed a single building to house both a new church and school, such as the Visitation Church and School (1948, 4530 Lyndale Avenue South) in South Minneapolis.55

50 Marjorie Pearson and Charlene K. Roise, South Minneapolis: An Historic Context (Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, 2000), 50 – 52; “Context: Religion, 1850 – 1950,” 14. 51 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 227; Judith A. Martin and David A. Lanegran, Where We Live: The Residential Districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 126 – 129; “History,” Church of St. Borromeo https://stchb.org/history. 52 “Context: Religion, 1850 – 1950,” 13; Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, 257. 53 Between the early 1940s and 1960 the number of Chinese residents in Minnesota increased by about 100%, to approximately 1,270 people. See Sarah R. Mason, “The Chinese,” in They Chose Minnesota: A Survey of the State’s Ethnic Groups, ed. June Drenning Holmquist (Minnesota Historical Society, 1981; St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 2014), 538. 54 Mason, “The Chinese,” in Holmquist, They Chose Minnesota, 538 – 540. 55 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 227.

7.20

Existing churches located in the central part of Minneapolis, though separated from their congregations located in the suburbs, appeared to prosper during first two decades following the war, in contrast to the prevailing national trend of declining downtown churches. The religion context prepared as part of the 1991 Preservation Plan for the City of Minneapolis notes that “in the early 1950s, the remaining downtown congregations were characterized by a multi-generational foundation in the community, large congregations, [and] a degree of diversity not enjoyed by many neighborhood churches.”56 By 1965, a series of newspaper articles identified 10 downtown churches57 with a combined membership of almost 30,000 individuals and combined annual budget of nearly $3 million. The 10 churches – Westminster Presbyterian, Hennepin Avenue Methodist, Central Lutheran, First Baptist, Cathedral Church of St. Mark, Plymouth Congregational, Wesley Methodist, St. Olaf’s Catholic, First Covenant and Gethsemane Episcopal (all located in an area bordered by Franklin Avenue on the south, Hennepin Avenue on the west and northwest, Seventh Street on the northeast, and Chicago Avenue on the east) averaged an attendance of 1,760 each Sunday. Many employed nationally-acclaimed pastors, served Minneapolis’s prominent citizens, and featured high-caliber music programs. Most of the parishioners were upper middle-class individuals who could afford to travel from the suburbs; few members lived in the immediate neighborhoods. By the mid-1960s, however, these churches were not marked by diversity and had with few minorities or working-class members.58

Beginning in the 1950s, Minneapolis began to lose its Jewish population as Jewish residents participated in postwar suburbanization, moving westward from historic locations in North and South Minneapolis to the suburbs of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. The Near North neighborhood, historically a center for the city’s Jewish residents, lost 94% of those residents between 1957 and 1971. By 1971, over 75% of the Minneapolis-area Jewish community resided in the suburbs. As Jewish congregations moved, they left behind their synagogue buildings and constructed new structures in the suburbs. The B’nai Abraham Synagogue (construction date unknown, razed 1960, 825 13th Avenue South), located on the south side, was the first Minneapolis synagogue to move to the suburbs, relocating to St. Louis Park in 1956. Institutions on the city’s north side generally remained until the late 1960s. For example, the Beth El Synagogue (1926, razed 1995, 1349 Penn Avenue North) in North Minneapolis, was replaced in 1968 by Beth El Synagogue at 5225 Barry Street West in St. Louis Park.59

56 “Context: Religion, 1850 – 1950,” 14. 57 This count excluded the Basilica of St. Mary, also located in the central city. 58 Jim Huffman, “Faithful Flock to Worship from Miles Away,” Minneapolis Tribune, June 13, 1965; Jim Huffman, “What of Those Living in Churches’ Shadow?” Minneapolis Tribune, June 27, 1965. 59 Laura Weber, “Beth El Synagogue, St. Louis Park,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified February 19, 2014, https://www.mnopedia.org/group/beth-el-synagogue-st-louis-park; Laura Weber, “B’nai Abraham Congregation, Minneapolis,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified December 1, 2015, https://www.mnopedia.org/group/bnai-abraham- congregation-minneapolis; Millet, Minnesota Modern, 234; Adams and VanDrasek, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 75; Laura Weber, “B’nai Abraham Congregation, Minneapolis,” Minnesota Historical Society, MNopedia, last modified December 1, 2015,

7.21

Across the nation, African American congregations (especially those outside of mainline denominations) faced limited funding for new construction in the postwar era, which restricted their ability to commission new buildings. In addition, covenants and redlining prevented access to suburbs, leading some congregations to remodel or replace their churches in existing locations. As white Americans left some urban neighborhoods for the suburbs, however, black Americans found some open plots of land for new construction, or purchased religious buildings (especially synagogues) from departing congregations.60

This was true on the North Side of Minneapolis, where departing Jewish communities were replaced by African American populations. During the late nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth century, African Americans had founded African Methodist Episcopal, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches in Minnesota. African American congregations experienced notable growth after WWII; by 1950, there were four African Methodist Episcopal congregations and several African American Baptist churches in the city. As Jewish congregations left North Minneapolis, some African American congregations purchased and repurposed their synagogues, such the African-American Church of God in Christ, which purchased the Tifereth B’nai Jacob Synagogue (1926, 808 Elwood Avenue) in 1957; or St. John’s Missionary Baptist, which purchased the Sharei Zedeck Synagogue (1936, 1119 Morgan venue North) in 1969.61 By 1979, there were approximately 30 black Protestant churches in Minneapolis.62 1960 – 1975: REORIENTATION OF THE RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE63

The passage of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act brought significant changes to the ethnic and religious make-up of the United States population. The bill abolished an earlier immigration system established in the 1920s that gave preference to residents of northern Europe and the Western Hemisphere and set strict restrictions on immigration from southern and eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. The Hart-Cellar Act replaced this national-origins system with a system that prioritized skilled labor as well as family reunification, creating the basis for chain migration by allowing naturalized

https://www.mnopedia.org/group/bnai-abraham-congregation-minneapolis; Peterson, “Jewish Settlement in Minnesota, 1860s – 1972,” 12 – 13. 60 Price, Temples for a Modern God, 62 – 64; Landscape Research, North Minneapolis, 39. 61 Landscape Research, North Minneapolis, 39; Laura Weber, “Tifereth B’nai Jacob Congregation, Minneapolis,” Minnesota Historical Society, MNopedia, last modified February 19, 2014, https://www.mnopedia.org/group/tifereth-bnai-jacob- congregation-minneapolis; Laura Weber, “Sharei Chesed Congregation, Minnetonka,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified February 18, 2016, https://www.mnopedia.org/group/sharei-chesed-congregation-minnetonka; “Context: Religion, 1850 – 1950,” 14; Doug Rossinow, “Tradition, Schism, and Continuity in Minnesota’s Communities of Faith,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified November 30, 2018, https://www.mnopedia.org/tradition-schism-and- continuity-minnesota-s-communities-faith; Earl Spangler, The Negro in Minnesota (Minneapolis: T. S. Denison & Company, Inc., 1961), 129 – 133, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b538878&view=1up&seq=8. 62 Willa L. Grant Battle, “Black Churches in Minneapolis,” (Plan B paper, University of Minnesota, April 25, 1979), 19. 63 Natalie Heneghan, Hmong in the Twin Cities: An Exploration of Resources and Places Associated with Hmong History in St. Paul and Minneapolis (Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, 2015), 63. The first Minneapolis Hmong residents arrived in 1979. As this is outside the temporal scope of this study, Shamanism and other Hmong religious traditions are not discussed here; however, the development of a Hmong context for the Twin Cities is recommended.

7.22

immigrants to sponsor relatives. The growth in world population also encouraged residents of other countries to seek opportunities in the United States.64

The rising immigrant populations contributed to a significant shift in the religious make-up of the United States, as individuals from Asia and Africa carried Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and other religions to the country. In Minneapolis, these new trends impacted the religious landscape. A 1974 article in the Minneapolis Tribune summarized the changes this way: “at one time the heaviest immigration was from Western Europe. Today the pattern has changed. Now the heaviest influx is from Asia, southern Europe, Mexico and Africa…Many of [the immigrants] come from countries with non-Western cultures and a number of them are non-Christian.”65

Immigration was not the only force shaping the religious landscape, however – Eastern religions also gained traction among American-born individuals.66 The 1960s and 70s represented a watershed movement for religious pluralism in America, what historian Richard Kyle calls “one of the great periods of religious experimentation in Western history.” Spurred on by reactions to the rapid social and economic change of the postwar era, Americans turned to Eastern religions as well as other groups associated with the 1960s counterculture, sects, cults, and the occult.67

The late 1960s and 1970s also witnessed the resurgence in conservative Christian and Jewish groups, including Protestant evangelical and fundamentalist, neo-Pentecostal, Seventh-day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon and Orthodox Jewish bodies.68 Kyle notes that while these groups differed in beliefs, they were united by their “demanding, absolutist beliefs, social and moral conformity, and a missionary spirit.”69 Both the “new” religions and conservative movements contributed to the decline of liberal Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant denominations, caught in the middle of the two extremes. The historic hegemony of the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment was also challenged by social and political developments, such as the civil rights movement and Supreme Court decisions that eliminated segregation and removed Christian ceremonies from public schools.70

64 Jerry Kammer, The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, Center for Immigration Studies, October 2015, 1 – 2; Preeti Mathus, “From the Ganges to Ten Thousand Lakes: Immigration from India to Minnesota,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified June 7, 2019, https://www.mnopedia.org/ganges-ten-thousand-lakes-immigration-india-minnesota. 65 Clifford D. Simak, “American Dream Still Lures Immigrants,” Minneapolis Tribune, June 23, 1974; Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 186 – 187, 198 – 199. 66 Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 197 – 202. 67 Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 181 – 182, 185, 238. 68 Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 188 – 189. 69 Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 189. 70 Edward E. Curtis IV, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960 – 1975 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 9; Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 185, 190 – 192.

7.23

Islam

Though the Twin Cities had a small population of Muslim residents in the early twentieth century, it was not until the 1960s that Islam experienced significant growth in the United States. After the Korean war, migration from foreign countries, including predominately Muslim countries, increased as students from Third World countries immigrated to take advantage of scholarships and fellowships offered by American universities. The passage of the Hart-Cellar Act in 1965 also served to encourage immigration from Muslim countries, and students and other immigrants of Arab ancestry increased the practice of Sunni and Shiite Islam in America.71

Concurrently to these developments, conversion to Islam by U.S. citizens also increased the numbers of Muslims in the United States. The Nation of Islam (NOI), founded in the 1930s by W. D. Fard and developed in the postwar era by Elijah Poole (later Elijah Muhammad), was an Islamic offshoot tied closely to social protest and black nationalism. After World War II, it spread across the country to include thousands of members. The movement owed much of its growth to the black nationalist leader Malcolm X, who popularized Elijah Muhammad’s teachings during the 1950s and early 1960s. During the 1960s and 1970s, the NOI gained a following in most American cities with substantial black populations. Though the NOI was relatively small when compared to other African American religious organizations, it drew national attention, as well as condemnation from some African American and immigrant Muslim leaders who repudiated the organization.72

Evidence from local newspapers indicates that both immigrant and African American Muslims practiced in Minneapolis during the Modern Era. A Temple of Islam (construction date unknown, unclear if extant, 1145 Emerson Avenue North) was located in a residential building in the Near North area of Minneapolis by 1959. By 1965, the Muslim Student Association had established a chapter at the University of Minnesota, and by 1972, the association sponsored an annual Ramadan dinner.73 That same year, the treasurer of the University’s Muslim Student Association estimated that approximately 300 Muslims lived in the Twin Cities, about half of whom were students at the University of Minnesota.74 The Islamic Center of Minnesota was established in 1965. In 1971, the organization established its Islamic Center of Minnesota Headquarters (construction date unknown, unclear if extant, 1128 6th Street Southeast) by the University of Minnesota. Within three years, the center was regularly used by about 250 Muslims, and held weddings, funerals, an Islamic school, and Arabic classes in addition to religious services.75

71 Ilyas Ba-Yunus and Kassim Kone, Muslims in the United States (Greenwood Press: Westport, Connecticut: 2006), 33 – 35, 49; Curtis, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 8; Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 238. 72 Curtis, Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 1 – 9; Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 239. 73 “Editor to Speak,” Minneapolis Tribune, July 9, 1965; Carl T. Rowan, “Sect Preaches Black Supremacy at Minneapolis Temple,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, August 30, 1959. 74 “Twin Cities Muslims Celebrate Their Holy Month with Fasting,” Minneapolis Star, November 4, 1972. 75 “Immigrants Adopt New Country, but Don’t Forget Old One,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 23, 1974.

7.24

Figure 7.9 The Temple of Islam at 1145 Emerson Avenue North was used by Minneapolis members of the NOI. Temple of Islam, August 30, 1959. “SECT Shunned by Most Negroes,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, August 30, 1959.

Hinduism and Buddhism

The new Asian immigrants who arrived in the United States during the later decades of the twentieth century brought numerous religions with them – Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Muslim, Hindu, Jain and Sikh.76 In particular, increasing numbers of Indian immigrants after 1965 contributed to the rise of Hinduism.77 The rise in Eastern religions was not only attributable to immigration however. During the 1960s, young Americans seeking subjective spiritual experience

76 Gaustad and Schmidt, The Religious History of America, 398 – 401 77 Gaustad and Schmidt, The Religious History of America, 413.

7.25 found Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Zen Buddhism attractive.78 The rise in Eastern religion can also be traced to the Eastern teachers who came to American beginning in the mid- 1960s, intentional proselytizing on the part of Eastern religions, changes in Western thought, and reactions to the rationalism, materialism, individualism, and fast pace of Western life. Eastern religions were practiced differently by Westerners than in immigrant communities. Whereas immigrants maintained their religions as a part of their family and community life, expressed through rituals such as funerals and weddings, Westerners turned to Eastern religions as something new, and their practice of these religions centered on spiritual experiences, authority, the power of guru leaders, and practices like meditation.79

Within the U.S., the Hindu-related groups of Hare Krishna, Divine Light Mission, and transcendental meditation were the most popular during the Modern Era. Transcendental meditation, popularized by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the United States beginning in the late 1950s, drew the following of Western celebrities such as the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, and became a teenage and young adult trend by the late 1960s. Beginning in the 1970s, TM was promoted as a science rather than a religion. Institutions including the U.S. government and the National Institute of Mental Health offered or utilized TM programs, and Maharishi International University was founded in Iowa in 1974. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) or Hare Krishna, arrived in the U.S. in 1965. Led by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the movement emphasized asceticism and was closely tied to the counterculture of the 1960s and early 1970s. Finally, the Divine Light movement led by Maharaj Ji experienced brief notoriety during the early 1970s.80

Zen Buddhism had reached America by the early twentieth century, but expanded greatly during the 1950s and 1960s. Popularized by the writings of D. T. Suzuki and his Western students, Zen’s focus on experience beyond the intellect fit with the era’s emphasis on experiential religion. In the late 1950s, San Francisco writers and artists including Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, Gary Snyder and Alan Watts pioneered what became known as “Beat Zen.” Though Zen Buddhism’s trendiness declined after the late 1950s, it continued to be practiced at Zen centers during the Modern Era. The Nichiren Shoshu branch of Buddhism (known in the United States as the Nichiren Shoshu of America or NSA) and its lay organization Soka Gakkai became prominent in Japan after World War II. It arrived in the United States after the war through Japanese immigrants and American military who had served in Japan. The movement rapidly gained a following among non-Japanese Americans during the late 1960s and by the mid-1970s claimed 200,000 members in the country.81

After India gained its independence in 1947, increasing numbers of Indian immigrants looked to American colleges and universities for higher education opportunities. At the University of

78 Paul Oliver, Hinduism and the 1960s: The Rise of a Counter-Culture (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), 32. 79 Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 198 – 200. 80 Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 203 – 226. 81 Kyle, The Religious Fringe, 227 – 237.

7.26

Minnesota, the university’s Indian student population increased during the 1940s and 50s, from 94 in 1944 to 1,607 in 1964. The Hart-Cellar Act brought additional Indian immigrants with specialized degrees in technology, science, and medicine to Minnesota companies such as 3M, Honeywell, and Control Data. During the 1960s, Indian immigrants lived in and around the University of Minnesota 82 campus, which by 1962 hosted a Hindu Association. By 1971, the Minneapolis Star noted that “some 150 persons have been attending meditation classes each quarter during the past year” at a Hindu temple (construction date unknown, 2104 30th Avenue South) located near the University of Minnesota. Many Indian organizations, including faith-based organizations, were established in the last three decades of the twentieth century to serve the diverse Indian population in the Twin Cities.83

During the postwar era, some of Minneapolis’s Japanese residents participated in the Twin Cities Buddhist Association, which began to meet at the University of Minnesota in 1946. From approximately 1949 to 1965, the association met at the Japanese American Center (construction date unknown, unclear if extant, 2200 Blaisdell Avenue). The Minnesota Zen Center, established in the early 1970s, appears to have be representative of the Zen Buddhism associated with the American counterculture rather than immigrant populations. By 1975, the Minnesota Zen Center (construction date unknown, 425 5th Street Southeast) was located above the home of Zen master Dainin Katagiri. Katagiri, who arrived in Minneapolis in 1972, was reputedly the first Zen master to operate a teaching practice in middle America rather than the coastal United States.84

82 “Hindu Couple Wed at ‘U,’ in East-West Ceremonies,” Minneapolis Star, August 9, 1961; ; “Hindu Festival Planned at ‘U,’” Minneapolis Star, March 23, 1962; Preeti Mathus, “From the Ganges to Ten Thousand Lakes: Immigration from India to Minnesota,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified June 7, 2019, https://www.mnopedia.org/ganges-ten- thousand-lakes-immigration-india-minnesota. 83 Willmar Thorkelson, “Guru Says Yoga Cures Many Ills,” Minneapolis Star, May 22, 1971. 84 Terry Wolkerstorfer, “Zen: A Self-Awakening to Clearly See Oneself,” Minneapolis Star, January 21, 1975; Michael Albert, “The Japanese,” in They Chose Minnesota: A Survey of the State’s Ethnic Groups, ed. June Drenning Holmquist (Minnesota Historical Society, 1981; St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 2014), 563 – 565; Jim Huffman, “Are Buddhists Seek Worship Site,” Minneapolis Tribune, October 4, 1965.

7.27

Figure 7.10 During the early 1970s, Zen master Dainin Katagiri taught at the Minnesota Zen Center, located on the upper floor of his residence at 425 5th Street Southeast. Minnesota Zen Center, January 21, 1975. “Zen: A Self-Awakening to Clearly See Onself,” Minneapolis Star.

Native American Religions

While a complete discussion of Native American religion is beyond the scope of this study, Native Americans became an increasingly large percentage of Minneapolis’s population between the 1940s and the 1970s. During World War II, a large number of Native Americans moved from area reservations to the Twin Cities in pursuit of job opportunities. Beginning in the early 1950s, relocation assistance programs sponsored by the Minneapolis Bureau of Indian Affairs office as well as other public and private agencies also encouraged migration to the metropolitan area. According to census data, the number of Native Americans in the city increased from 145 individuals in 1940 to over 5,800 individuals by 1970; however, actual numbers were likely higher (according to one 1975 study, approximately 12,400 Native Americans lived in Minneapolis by 1975). Many new arrivals settled around East Franklin Avenue in the Phillips neighborhood, which became the hub of the city’s Native American community. During the 1960s and 70s, Minneapolis was the birthplace of a movement of Native American activism that spread across the United States. Minneapolis-based organizations, including the Upper Midwest American Indian Center and the American Indian Movement, promoted Native American welfare through social, educational, vocational, and cultural programs; Native American- sponsored schools such as Heart of the Earth Survival School in Minneapolis also promoted indigenous culture. While not restricted to the promotion of religion, these organizations may have encouraged the preservation of indigenous religious traditions and beliefs. In addition, religious organizations, including the Division of Indian Work and the Church of Gichitwaa Kateri (1960, 3045 Park Avenue), and the American Indian Evangelical

7.28

Church (construction date unknown, razed 1980, 1823 Emerson Avenue North) developed in Minneapolis during the postwar era specifically to serve the religious needs of Native Americans.85

85 Two Pines Resource Group, LLC, Native American Context Statement and Reconnaissance Level Survey Supplement (prepared for the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning & Economic Development, July 2016), 55 – 94. See pages 93 – 94 of this context study for a list of properties associated with Native American religious organizations and practices during the second half of the twentieth century.

7.29

PRESERVATION OVERVIEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION

In order for a property to be designated as historic, it must meet criteria for designation outlined in federal, state, and/or local preservation frameworks. In general, a property must be recognized as a property type that is eligible for preservation, and exhibit sufficient historic significance and historic integrity for designation. This section provides an overview of federal and local designation for historic properties, and outlines the relevant laws and regulations related to each level of designation. Federal Designation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, is a key piece of federal legislation that provides for the protection of cultural resources in the United States. The NHPA established the NRHP as “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worth of preservation.” The NHPA also established State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). To be considered NRHP-eligible, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria defined by the National Park Service: Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Association with the life of a significant person.

Criterion C: Embody a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.

Criterion D: Yield, or be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.

Certain types of properties are not typically eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criteria Considerations allow for properties such as cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religions institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years to be considered eligible if they are integral parts of larger historic districts that do meet the standard criteria, or if they fall under one of the Considerations below:

Criterion Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criterion Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criterion Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his production life.

7.30

Criterion Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criterion Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified matter as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived.

Criterion Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance.

Criterion Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years it is of exceptional importance.

If a property is determined to possess historic significance under one of these criteria, its integrity is evaluated using the seven aspects of integrity. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation identifies the seven aspects of integrity to be used in evaluating properties for eligibility. These aspects of integrity are: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location: The place where the property was constructed of the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting: The physical environment/character of the place where the property played its historical role.

Design: How well the property retains combinations of elements creating its form, plan, space, structure, and style.

Materials: How physical elements were combined at specific time periods and in particular patterns to create the property.

Workmanship: How well a property retains physical evidence of the crafts of a particular time period in history.

Feeling: The combination of the property’s physical features that express the historic sense of a particular time period.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

If a property is determined to possess historical significance under one or more criteria, retains sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance, and meets any applicable criteria considerations, the property is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

7.31

City of Minneapolis Local Designation

The City of Minneapolis defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of seven criteria, as outlined in Section 599.210 of the City of Minneapolis Municipal Code. The criteria that must be considered when determining the local historic significance of a property include: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. 3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES AND RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Property types associated with the theme of religion within the context of Minneapolis in the Modern Era will be located within the city limits of Minneapolis, will have achieved significance between 1930 and 1975, and will demonstrate historic significance under one or more designation criteria in connection to this theme. This section describes the property types most likely to be associated with this theme, and the associated property types’ relationship to NRHP and local designation criteria. Associated Property Types

Specific property types associated with the theme of religion within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 are listed below. Of the property categories acknowledged by the National Register (buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects), properties associated with this theme are most likely to be buildings or districts. These might include: 1) Properties utilized as houses of worship, including: a. Churches b. Synagogues c. Residences or other buildings repurposed for use by Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic worshippers 2) Properties associated with religious education, including schools, rectories, and convents 3) Properties associated with religious organizations, including offices

7.32

4) Properties associated with famous individuals who achieved significance in the area of religion, including places of residence and work.

Associated Properties’ Relationship to National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, properties must have obtained significance for one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following section provides suggestions on how properties associated with the theme of religion within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 might be evaluated for significance under these four criteria. The term “subject property” is used to refer to properties associated with this theme. For additional information, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.86 Criterion Considerations:

Properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes are not normally considered eligible for the National Register. However, these properties may be considered eligible under Criterion Consideration A if they derive their “primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.” According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, “Historic significance for a religious property cannot be established on the merits of a religious doctrine, but rather, for architectural or artistic values or for important historic or cultural forces that the property represents. A religious property's significance under Criterion A, B, C, or D must be judged in purely secular terms.” Where relevant, Criterion Consideration A is discussed within each NRHP Criteria below.

The temporal period of this context study ends in 1975, 45 years from today’s date. Thus, it is possible that some associated properties may have achieved exceptional significance within the past 50 years under Criterion Consideration G. Criterion A: Association with Significant Events

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, subject properties must be “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” These events include 1) “a specific event marking an important moment in American prehistory or history” and 2) “a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation.” Some historic events and trends identified in this chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 with which subject properties might be associated include 1) the increased prominence of organized religion during the postwar era; 2) significant developments within Christianity and specific Christian denominations, including debates between modernism and fundamentalism, the rise of neoevangelicalism, the ecumenical movement, the liturgical movement, the resurgence of conservative Christian denominations in the late 1960s and 1970s, increasing ethnic diversity as Native Americans, Eastern Europeans, Chinese Americans, and others joined or established churches,

86 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf.

7.33 and the “modernization” of the Catholic Church as symbolized by the Second Vatican Council; 3) significant developments within Judaism during the Modern Era, including trends within and relationships between the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform branches of Judaism; 4) increasing religious diversity in the 1960s and 70s, including the growth of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam in Minneapolis; 5) participation in broader social, cultural, and political movements such as the Civil Rights movement, efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and efforts to end housing discrimination by religious leaders, congregations, and organizations. In order to meet Criterion Consideration A, religious properties evaluated under Criterion A must be “significant under a theme in the history of religion having secular scholarly recognition;” or “significant under another historical theme, such as exploration, settlement, social philanthropy, or education;” or “significantly associated with traditional cultural values.” For example, a church that served as the site of a significant denominational split, the first Islamic temple in Minneapolis, or a Jewish school significant in the history of Minneapolis education all meet Criterion Consideration A and might be eligible under Criteria A.

Religious properties considered significant under a theme in the history of religion will be categorized under the Area of Significance of Religion, defined by the National Park Service as “the organized system of beliefs, practices, and traditions regarding mankind's relationship to perceived supernatural forces.”87 Religious properties considered significant under other historical themes might fall under other Areas of Significance, including:

• Education: “The process of conveying or acquiring knowledge or skills through systematic instruction, training, or study” • Ethnic Heritage: “The history of persons having a common ethnic or racial identity” • Social History: “the history of efforts to promote the welfare of society; the history of society and the lifeways of its social groups” The period of significance for a subject property evaluated under Criterion A should reflect the time period during which the property achieved significance. The level of significance will likely be local. Criterion B: Association with Significant Persons

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B, properties must be “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” A significant individual is one “whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.” In order to meet Criterion Consideration A, religious properties evaluated under Criterion B are “eligible for association with a person important in religious history, if that significance has scholarly, secular recognition or is important in other historic contexts.”

To be significant for association with an individual, a subject property must have been associated with the individual during the time when he or she achieved significance, and the property must be

87 For a complete list of Areas of Significance, see the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A- Complete.pdf.

7.34

the best illustration of that individual’s achievements. The individual must have directly influenced the conception and/or development of the property, or have lived in the property while making their contributions to their respective fields in Minneapolis. For example, a subject property significant under Criterion B could include the house of a religious leader who influenced the formation of a religious movement. The length of association with the individual in comparison with other associated properties should also be considered. Properties identified as the best representation of an individual’s contributions might be eligible under Criterion B in the Area of Significance of Religion or other Areas of Significance, depending on the nature of the individual’s accomplishments. The period of significance should reflect the time period during which the individual achieved significance and was associated with the property. The area of significance would likely be local, although properties associated with individuals with national reputations, such as Billy Graham, might demonstrate significance at the state or national level. Properties significant for association with notable architects or contractors should be considered under Criterion C. Criterion C: Design/Construction

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible under Criterion C, properties must “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or…represent the work of a master, or…possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Properties that represent a type, period, or method of construction are those that illustrate, through distinctive features, a particular architectural style or construction method. They might illustrate “the pattern of features common to a particular class of resources, the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, the evolution of that class, or the transition between classes of resources.” These properties might be significant in the Areas of Significance of Engineering, “the practical application of scientific principles to design, construct, and operate equipment, machinery, and structures to serve human needs,” or Architecture, “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs.” For subject properties to be considered eligible under Criterion C in the context of this chapter, they must exemplify design trends, methods of construction, or a class of resources specific to the theme of religion. For example, a postwar church with a “central plan” layout might be nominated under Criterion C for the distinctive features that characterize it as an example of trends in religious architecture during the 1960s and 70s. Properties that appear representative of modern architectural styles or the work of a master (i.e., a notable architect, engineer, or contractor), or that possess high artistic value, should be evaluated within the context of Chapter 9, “Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects.” The level of significance would likely be local. All properties designated under Criterion C should have a period of significance synonymous with their date of construction. Criterion D: Information Potential

To be considered eligible under Criterion D, properties must “have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible

7.35 under Criterion D, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the theme of religion within this context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion D. Associated Properties’ Relationship to Local Designation Criteria: Criterion 1: Association with Significant Events

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion A (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Association with Significant Persons or Groups

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion B (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 2. Criterion 3: Association with City or Neighborhood Identity

Places of worship and religious institutions are often closely linked to the identity of a neighborhood. Thus, it is likely that some subject properties will be eligible for local designation under Criterion 3 for association with neighborhood or city identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

Properties that meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 4. Some properties considered for significance under local Criterion 4 should be evaluated under the themes of Architecture and Architects, discussed in Chapter 9, rather than under the theme of religion. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

Some properties that meet National Register Criterion C (see above) as representative of a class of resources might also be eligible under local Criterion 5. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

7.36

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 6. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion 7, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the theme of religion within the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion 7 for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion 7. Integrity

To retain integrity, a subject property must retain most or all of the seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that retain integrity will have the ability to communicate their historic significance through their physical features. For more information on integrity, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Other Considerations The relocation of Jewish residents from North Minneapolis to western suburbs led to the repurposing of synagogues in northern Minneapolis as churches by African American congregations. Former synagogues in North Minneapolis should be considered for their significance to both Jewish and African American communities. During the 1960s and 70s, some Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic worshippers repurposed existing residential buildings as houses of worship. As the significance of these buildings is not suggested by their physical appearance, additional research is necessary to determine their locations and integrity.

7.37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, John S. and Barbara J. VanDrasek. Minneapolis-St. Paul: People, Place and Public Life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Albert, Michael. “The Japanese.” In They Chose Minnesota: A Survey of the State’s Ethnic Groups, edited by June Drenning Holmquist, 558 - 571. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1981. Reprint, St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 2014.

Annual Report of the Greater Twin Cities Council of Churches. [Minneapolis?]: Greater Twin Cities Council of Churches, 1960.

Battle, Willa L. Grant. “Black Churches in Minneapolis.” Plan B paper, University of Minnesota, 1979.

Ba-Yunus, Ilyas and Kassim Kone. Muslims in the United States. Greenwood Press: Westport, Connecticut: 2006.

Berman, Hyman and Linda Mack Schloff. Jews in Minnesota. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 2002.

Buffer, Thomas. “The American Liturgical Movement, Social Justice, and Architectural Change.” Antiphon 20, no. 3 (2016): 241 – 267. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/646695.

Buggeln, Gretchen. The Suburban Church: Modernism and Community in Postwar America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Chapman, Richard. “Religious Belief and Behavior.” In Minnesota in a Century of Change, edited by Clifford E. Clark, Jr., 507 - 538. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1989.

“Context: Religion, 1850 – 1950.” In Thomas R. Zahn & Associates. Preservation Plan for the City of Minneapolis. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, 1991.

Curtis, Edward E. IV. Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960 – 1975. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Douglass, Paul H. Minneapolis Churches: A Brief Study of their Institutional Aspects. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1944.

Erickson, Robert P. “The Role of American Churches in the McCarthy Era.” Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte 3, no. 1 (1990): 45 -58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43750635.

Gaustad, Edwin and Leigh Schmidt, The Religious History of America. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2002.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day. New York: Harper Collins, 2010.

7.38

“Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches.” Minnesota Historical Society. Accessed November 9, 2019. http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00416.xml.

Heneghan, Natalie. Hmong in the Twin Cities: An Exploration of Resources and Places Associated with Hmong History in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, 2015.

Holmquist, June Drenning, ed. They Chose Minnesota: A Survey of the State’s Ethnic Groups. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1981. Reprint, St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 2014.

Kammer, Jerry. The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965. Center for Immigration Studies, October 2015.

Kyle, Richard. The Religious Fringe: A History of Alterative Religions in America. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Landscape Research. North Minneapolis: Minneapolis Historic Context Study. Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission and the Minneapolis Planning Department, 1998.

Lansing, Michael J. The Faith of Our Forebears: 100 Years at Mount Olive Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Mount Olive Lutheran Church, 2009.

Lewin, Rhoda G. “Stereotype and Reality in the Jewish Immigrant Experience in Minneapolis.” Minnesota History 46, no. 7 (Fall 1979): 258 – 273.

Living Faith: Stories from the First 150 Years. Minneapolis: Westminster Presbyterian Church, 2007.

Mason, Sarah R. “The Chinese.” In They Chose Minnesota: A Survey of the State’s Ethnic Groups, edited by June Drenning Holmquist, 531 - 545. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1981. Reprint, St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 2014.

Mathus, Preeti. “From the Ganges to Ten Thousand Lakes: Immigration from India to Minnesota.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified June 7, 2019. https://www.mnopedia.org/ganges-ten-thousand-lakes-immigration-india-minnesota.

Martin, Judith A. and David A. Lanegran. Where We Live: The Residential Districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

Millett, Larry. AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007.

Millett, Larry. Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Minneapolis Directory Company. Minneapolis City Directory. Minneapolis: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1930.

7.39

Minneapolis Directory Company. Minneapolis City Directory. Minneapolis: Minneapolis Directory Company, 1940.

Minneapolis Star.

Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Minneapolis Sunday Tribune.

Minneapolis Tribune. National Register of Historic Places. Christ Church Lutheran. Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Historic Landmark Nomination #01000654.

Oliver, Paul. Hinduism and the 1960s: The Rise of a Counter-Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.

Oser, Edward. “World War II and the Pacifist Controversy.” American Studies 14, no. 2 (Fall 1973): 5 – 24.

Pearson, Marjorie, Penny Petersen, and Charlene Roise. The Evolution of the Whittier Neighborhood. Prepared for The Whittier Alliance, 2009.

--- and Charlene K. Roise. South Minneapolis: An Historic Context. Prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, 2000.

Peterson, Garneth O. “Jewish Settlement in Minneapolis, 1860s – 1972.” In Thomas R. Zahn & Associates. Preservation Plan for the City of Minneapolis. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, 1991.

Price, Jay M. Temples for a Modern God: Religious Architecture in Postwar America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Research Department of the Community Health and Welfare Council. Profile: Social Services of Minneapolis Churches. Minneapolis: Research Department of the Community Health and Welfare Council, 1965.

Rossinow, Doug. “Tradition, Schism, and Continuity in Minnesota’s Communities of Faith.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified November 30, 2018. https://www.mnopedia.org/tradition-schism-and-continuity-minnesota-s-communities- faith.

Russell, C. Allyn. “William Bell Riley: Architect of Fundamentalism.” Minnesota History 43, no. 1 (Spring 1972): 14 – 30.

7.40

Schmid, Calvin F. Social Saga of the Twin Cities: An Ecological and Statistical Study of Social Trends in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Monograph Series No. 1. [Minneapolis?]: Minneapolis Council of Social Agencies, Bureau of Social Research, 1937.

Shutter, Marion Daniel. History of Minneapolis: Gateway to the Northwest. Vol. 1. Minneapolis: S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1923.

Spangler, Earl. The Negro in Minnesota. Minneapolis: T. S. Denison & Company, Inc., 1961. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b538878&view=1up&seq=8.

Szasz, Ferenc M. “William B. Riley and the Fight Against Teaching of Evolution in Minnesota.” Minnesota History 41, no. 5 (Spring 1969): 201 – 216. Teicher, Jordan G. “Why Is Vatican II So Important?” NPR. October 10, 2012. https://www.npr.org/2012/10/10/162573716/why-is-vatican-ii-so-important.

The WPA Guide to Minnesota. 1938. Reprint, San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 2014.

The Mayflower Journey, 1925 – 2000. Minneapolis: Mayflower Community Church, 2000.

Thomas R. Zahn & Associates. Preservation Plan for the City of Minneapolis. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis, 1991.

Two Pines Resource Group. Native American Context Statement and Reconnaissance Level Survey Supplement. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning & Economic Development, 2016.

Weber, Laura. “Beth El Synagogue, St. Louis Park.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified February 19, 2014. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/beth-el-synagogue-st-louis- park.

---. “B’nai Abraham Congregation, Minneapolis.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified December 1, 2015. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/bnai-abraham- congregation-minneapolis.

---. “From Exclusion to Integration: The Story of Jews in Minnesota.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified January 8, 2019. https://www.mnopedia.org/exclusion- integration-story-jews-minnesota.

---. “‘Gentiles Preferred:’ Minneapolis Jews and Employment, 1920 – 1950.” Minnesota History 52, no. 5 (Spring 1991): 166 – 182.

---. “Sharei Chesed Congregation, Minnetonka.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified February 18, 2016. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/sharei-chesed-congregation- minnetonka.

7.41

---. “Tifereth B’nai Jacob Congregation, Minneapolis.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified February 19, 2014. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/tifereth-bnai-jacob- congregation-minneapolis.

7.42

CHAPTER EIGHT

Tyrone Guthrie Theater, 1974. Minnesota Historical Society.

ARTS, CULTURE, AND RECREATION

List of Figures

Figure 8.1: 3744 Fifteenth Avenue South, November 30, 1956. 8.2 Figure 8.2: Aqua City Motel, c. 1958. 8.3 Figure 8.3: Downtowner Motel, 1966. 8.5 Figure 8.4: Hasty Tasty, 3601 Lyndale Avenue South, 1953. 8.6 Figure 8.5: White Castle Restaurant, August 26, 1954. 8.8 Figure 8.6: Lyndale Drive-In, October 5, 1956. 8.9 Figure 8.7: Band Box diner, c. 1945. 8.11 Figure 8.8: Powderhorn Park, January 18, 1942. 8.13 Figure 8.9: Minneapolis Aqua Follies, c. 1952. 8.14 Figure 8.10: Parade Stadium, July 17, 1952. 8.16 Figure 8.11: Minneapolis Auditorium, 1966. 8.18 Figure 8.12: Memorial Stadium, c. 1940. 8.20 Figure 8.13: Metropolitan Stadium, November 21, 1958. 8.21 Figure 8.14: Walker Art Center, August 6, 1975. 8.23 Figure 8.15: Orchestra Hall, July 24, 1975. 8.25 Figure 8.16: Tyrone Guthrie Theater, 1974. 8.27

ARTS, CULTURE, AND RECREATION

The economic prosperity that followed World War II created new opportunities for recreation in the Modern Era. Like many Americans across the nation, Minneapolis residents found themselves with more time and money for leisure pursuits. The city’s parks, cultural institutions, and professional sports teams offered opportunities for Minneapolitans to enjoy outdoor recreation, the performing and visual arts, and sporting events, while the expanding retail trade brought cheap food and entertainment to an increasingly automobile-oriented audience. Many avenues for recreation and entertainment in the Modern Era have continued to the present day, as seen in the prominent cultural institutions, scenic parks, and generic commercial establishments that continue to dot the Minneapolis landscape. RECREATION ALONG THE ROAD

The automobile began to shape the built environment of recreation in the United States during the early twentieth century. By the 1920s, filling stations, cabin camps, refreshment stands, and various wayside retailers had sprung up along highways near resorts, at wayside oases, and along bypasses. Auto-oriented commerce and entertainment also appeared in so-called “taxpayer strips” or commercial corridors built up along streetcar lines and thoroughfares within urban areas, as well as highway “approach strips” at the fringes of cities that catered to tourists and city residents on weekend trips. Following World War II, the designs of motels, gas stations, drive-in theaters, restaurants and fast-food outlets catered to the car culture of the postwar era, and the construction of the federal interstate system created additional locations for roadside commerce at freeway interchanges. From the domestic and fantastic imagery of the 1920s and 30s, to the Streamline Moderne and International styles that arose during the Great Depression, to the Googie style of the 1950s, to the “environmental look” of the later 1960s and the 1970s, these businesses formed the backbone of informal entertainment during the Modern Era.1

Gas Stations

By 1930, the drive-in filling station dedicated to the sale of gasoline had emerged as a distinct building type. Constructed along taxpayer strips, on downtown Main Streets and in rural areas alike, many stations were built between the early 1920s and World War II in a variety of styles to mimic domestic architecture (including bungalow, English cottage, exotic, and colonial styles). By the late 1920s, the functions of filling station and repair garage had been combined in the neighborhood service station. During the Great Depression, the need to generate additional income through sales of tires, batteries, and accessories, to improve service facilities, and to provide a modern image led oil companies such as Texaco to replace the domestic-style service station with International and Streamline Moderne-style “boxes.” Located on city lots or along highways, the utilitarian service station, with office, service bays, storage space, display window, and restrooms in a single, oblong box-shaped building, remained popular for the next 25 years.2 In Minnesota, the popular brick-pier-

1 Chester H. Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), 3 – 36, 39 - 73; Larry Millett, Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 115. 2 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 95 – 107.

8.1

and-canopy form and occasional exotic form such as Pueblo Revival prevailed during the 1920s; the 1930s saw the development of Colonial and English cottage-style stations as well as Moderne-style boxes. In Minneapolis, the English-style Pure Oil Company station was constructed at 5353 Nicollet Avenue in 1940 (renovated 2003), while the Texaco Service Station (1930, 1949 addition, 3744 Fifteenth Avenue South) at Fifteenth Avenue South displays the characteristics of a Moderne- style box.3

Figure 8.1 The design of this Texaco service station at 3744 Fifteenth Avenue South reflects the white oblong- box style that became popular for chain service stations beginning in the late 1930s. 3744 Fifteenth Avenue South, November 30, 1956. Norton and Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society. Following the construction of the first self-service gas station in Los Angeles in 1947, many independent gas stations began to convert to self-service. Designs of independent gas stations were often more unique than those of major chains, and during the postwar era, such stations often featured large canopies to attract attention. Major chains were slower to convert to self-service, but by the mid-1950s had followed the lead of independent gas stations by including exaggerated architectural features such as V-shaped canopies and expanded visual fronts in their station designs. One such design, the V-shaped canopy design used at Phillips 66 gas stations beginning in 1960, was inspired by the cantilevered canopy of the Phillips 66 Station in Cloquet, Minnesota designed by

3 David Gebhard and Tom Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 16 – 17; Larry Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 238.

8.2

Frank Lloyd Wright in 1956. Extant examples of this design in Minneapolis include the former Phillips 66 Station (1964, 4554 Minnehaha Avenue) on Minnehaha Avenue in South Minneapolis and the former Phillips 66 Station (1962, 928 Franklin Avenue East) on Franklin Avenue East just south of downtown. As public opposition to gaudy designs rose in the early 1960s, oil companies redesigned their stations with the domestic imagery of suburban ranch and colonial-style houses, and later with the mansard roofs, cedar shakes, and bare-wood cladding that characterized the “environmental look” of the mid-1960s and early 1970s.4

Motels By the early 1930s, Americans traveling by car could find overnight accommodations in “cabin courts” which, as their name suggests, typically consisted of a set of one-room cabins arranged around a central parking area. During the Great Depression, motor courts prospered as Americans turned to road trips for low-cost entertainment; by the late 1930s, the privacy, economy, and quiet atmosphere of the motor court had proved attractive enough to take away business from older, traditional hotels. After World War II, individual cabins were combined into a single building, which became known as the “motel.” Configured as a single line parallel to the road or as a “V” or “C” shape, motels constructed during the first decade of the postwar era typically displayed a utilitarian, modern design with neon signs and lighting. By 1956, there were over 60,000 motels across the United States, and increasing competition led many motels away from the strictly utilitarian towards more exaggerated architectural features. In the Twin Cities, many motels constructed during midcentury have been demolished or converted to new uses. Those that remain, such as the Aqua City Motel (1954, later additions, 5739 Lyndale Avenue South), are typically located on pre-interstate highway routes.5

The 1950s also saw the rise of motel chains, including the franchises of Holiday Inn (1952) and Howard Johnson (1953). One of the most popular configurations for these chain motels was the center-core model, in which back-to-back rooms (accessible from the exterior) were arranged on either side of a utility core. By the late 1950s, on sites that required more intensive development, motels took the form of mid-rise buildings with enclosed central corridors. In Minnesota, large two- story motels, constructed by both independent operators and chain establishments in the mid-1950s, were primarily found in and around urban areas such as the Twin Cities and Duluth. They often included restaurants, and some featured amenities such as indoor pools. By 1956, a newspaper article in the Minneapolis Star asserted that there were nine planned and existing motels within the city limits. Among these was the two-story Fair Oaks Motor Hotel and Restaurant (c. 1957, razed, 24th Street and 3rd Avenue South) in South Minneapolis. Another mid-rise Minneapolis motel, the three-story Voyageur Motel (1961, 2823 South Wayzata Boulevard), was constructed in 1961 near the city’s western limits. Numerous motels were constructed in Twin Cities suburbs, including the Thunderbird Motel (1962; razed 2016) in Bloomington and the Ambassador Resort Motor Hotel (1961; razed) in St. Louis Park.6

4 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 108 – 115; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 128; Building permit index card for 928 E. Franklin Avenue, Minneapolis Building Permit Card Collection, Hennepin County Library. 5 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 169 - 183; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 120 – 121. 6 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 181 – 187; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 123 – 128; “Motel Goes Up.” Minneapolis Sunday

8.3

Figure 8.2 The Aqua City Motel was one of thousands of motels constructed across the U.S. during the postwar era. Aqua City Motel, c. 1958. Minnesota Historical Society.

As federal interstate construction began in the 1950s, the rerouting of traffic brought challenges for older, mom-and-pop motels bypassed by the new freeways. The freeway interchanges, however, provided prime locations for the construction of new chain motels. As motel chains relied on name recognition rather than architecture to attract customers, giant signs became a primary marketing tool. As chains added common hotel features like front lobbies, restaurants, display and meeting rooms, indoor swimming pools, and saunas, the division between motels and hotels became less distinct. Architectural historian Chester Liebs notes that “as the interstate-highway network penetrated the inner cities, many chains built downtown motels, with adjacent parking garages.”7 This was true in Minneapolis, where mid or low-rise motels included the Downtowner Motel (by 1959, razed, 7th Street South and Fourth Avenue South), the Curtis Motor Lodge (by 1959; razed, 11th Street and 3rd Avenue South), the Inn Towne Motel (1963; razed, Hawthorne Avenue between 10th and 11th Streets); the 400 Motel/Leamington Motor Inn (1963, razed, 400 10th Street South), and the Guest House (by 1959, razed, 704 4th Avenue South).8

Tribune, August 6, 1961. 7 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 188. 8 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 183 - 189; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 120 – 128; Building permit index card for 5739 Lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection, Hennepin County Library; Bob Murphy, “Far Cry from the Cabin Court: Motel Is Growing in ‘Hotel’ Picture,” Minneapolis Star, December 26, 1956; Undated publication in vertical file “Hotels: Minneapolis: General, 1964 - 1983” James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library; Timothy Blodgett, “Leamington Hotel Acquires Never-Opened 400 Motel,” Minneapolis Tribune, July 2, 1965; Pat McCarty, “Hotels, Motels Expand Rapidly,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, January 13, 1963; Clifford W. Nyberg, ed., Odin Lee’s Condensed Guide to Minneapolis (Minneapolis, Odin Lee Publications, 1959), 65.

8.4

Figure 8.3 The Downtowner Motel at Seventh Street and Fourth Avenue South (razed) was one of several low and mid-rise downtown motels constructed in Minneapolis. Downtowner Motel, 1966. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

Drive-ins, Drive-ups, Diners, and Family Restaurants

During the 1920s, the rise in automobile ownership led to a symbiotic relationship between automobile travel and eating out, and opened up new roadside locations for establishments offering quick, informal dining. As the number of restaurants increased, restaurant owners used their building designs to advertise their offerings and compete in a crowded market. Several types of eating establishments developed to meet the dining needs of motorists in the Modern Era. These included family restaurant chains, which evolved to meet the need for respectable yet inexpensive and convenient dining along the highway. Howard Johnson pioneered the type in the 1930s, and was followed by other family restaurant chains such as the Hot Shoppes and Friendly restaurants. By 1962, Howard Johnson was constructing a restaurant and motel complex in Bloomington, with plans for other locations in Rochester and St. Paul. Marc’s Big Boy, another family chain restaurant, opened its first Minnesota location near the Brookdale Shopping Center in Brooklyn Center in the late 1960s.9

9 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 193 – 203; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 120; Pat McCarty, “Rochester Unit Is Part of Howard Johnson Move West,” Minneapolis Star, September 23, 1962; “Marc’s Big Boy Will Open Café,” Minneapolis Star, September 5,

8.5

Figure 8.4 The local Hasty Tasty restaurant chain operated at least four Minneapolis locations during the Modern Era. Hasty Tasty, 3601 Lyndale Avenue South, 1953. Norton and Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

In Minneapolis, the restaurant business increased dramatically after World War II. Though their downtown locations and exterior building designs did not reflect the highway and automobile orientation of the new family restaurant chains, several popular cafeterias operated in and around downtown Minneapolis from the 1930s through the 1950s, including Richards Treat Cafeteria at 114 Sixth Street South (in operation from 1924 to 1957), Forum Cafeteria at 36 Seventh Street South (in operation beginning in 1929), Miller’s Cafeteria at 20 Seventh Street South (in operation from 1876 to 1964), and Becky’s Cafeteria at 19th Street East and Hennepin Avenue (in operation beginning in 1925). Lunch counters also offered fast, inexpensive meals downtown during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. Downtown businesses such as Power’s, Dayton’s, Kresge’s, Woolworth’s, Snyder’s, and Walgreen’s maintained lunch counters for shoppers and downtown workers on lunch break. Other famous downtown restaurants in operation during the first half of the Modern Era included Al’s Breakfast at 413 14th Avenue Southeast in Dinkytown; the three Wrigley’s Restaurants at Fourth and Hennepin, Sixth and Hennepin, and Fourth and Nicollet; the Nankin Café at 25 Seventh Street South (established 1919); and Peter’s Grill at 85 9th Street South (established in 1930).10 Finally, the

1968. 10 Timothy Trent Blade, “Grabbing a Bite: ‘Fast Food’ in Hennepin County,” Hennepin History 50, no.2 (Spring 1991): 3 – 11;

8.6 local restaurant chain Hasty Tasty was established in 1933. The full-service restaurant with bakery and lunch counter maintained at least four Minneapolis locations, both downtown and in other city neighborhoods, including a Hasty Tasty (1919, razed, 3601 Lyndale Avenue South) on Lyndale Avenue South in southwest Minneapolis. (Other locations included 1433 West Lake Street, 717 Hennepin Avenue, and 50th Street West and France Avenue South).11

Perhaps the most iconic quick dining establishment during the Modern Era was the fast food restaurant. Descended from the food stands of the early twentieth century, the fast food restaurant appeared in urban areas to meet the need for quick meals of predictable quality and low price. The pioneer of the fast food chain was White Castle, founded in 1921. Architectural historian Chester Liebs notes that “by combining a limited menu focused on one mass-production item cooked to uniform standards, an attention-getting building, and an interior indicating a high level of sanitation, the founders of the White Castle System developed a retail format that revolutionized the short-order trade.”12 Following White Castle’s model, similar hamburger chains sprang up across the United States. The first White Castle reached Minneapolis in 1927; by 1940, the chain operated seven Minneapolis locations on West Broadway, East and West Lake Street, University Avenue, Washington Avenue, Lyndale Avenue and Hennepin Avenue. One of the chain’s prefabricated buildings, White Castle No. 8 (1936, 616 3252 Lyndale Avenue South) still exists at 3252 Lyndale Avenue South, though it has been moved from its original locations at 616 Washington Avenue Southeast and 329 Central Avenue Southeast.13

Drive-in restaurants, another step in the evolution of fast food, became popular in the 1920s, pioneered by chains such as Pig Stands and A&W. Most drive-ins featured a rectangular or circular building surrounded on all sides by space for customers to “drive-in” and park their cars; servers delivered food to each customer. The success of the model led individual establishments as well as existing chains such as White Castle to add drive-in operations to their restaurants. During the 1950s and early 1960s, the drive-ins’ golden age, buildings featured exaggerated modern motifs, with cantilevered roofs and canopies providing both shelter for vehicles and advertising. The increasing popularity of drive-ins in Minneapolis following WWII was indicated in a 1949 Minneapolis Star article. The article noted that licenses for seasonal businesses in Hennepin County, which included drive-ins as well as motels, cabin camps, and food stands, had increased from a total of 62 in 1948 to 101 by May of 1949. The article also noted that Minneapolis and its suburbs contained an estimated 60 drive-ins. Remarking that “many a drive-in located on a fast-traffic artery like the beltline has proven a waste of money,” since “customers just won’t stop when up to traveling speed,” the article advised readers that “the best locations are those on leisurely traffic streets or highways. The very best spots are those which can accommodate 100 cars and which have easy access.”14 Though some national chains were located in Minnesota, most drive-ins were locally-owned. For example, the

Joseph Stipanovich, City of Lakes: An Illustrated History of Minneapolis (Woodland Hills, CA: Windsor Publications, 1982), 118. 11 “Hasty Tasty Damage Set at $125,000,” Minneapolis Star, January 1, 1952; “Hasty Tasty Shops,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, April 10, 1938; Blade, “Grabbing a Bite,” 8 - 9. 12 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 208. 13 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 204 – 208; National Register of Historic Places, White Castle No. 8, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #86002868; Steven R. Hoffbeck, “The Barrels: Root Beer Stands of the Upper Midwest,” Minnesota History 53, no. 7 (Fall 1993): 256; Blade, “Grabbing a Bite,” 5. 14 Bob Murphy, “Drive-In Café Trade Booms as Summer Looms,” Minneapolis Star, May 30, 1949.

8.7

Lyndale Drive-In (1954, razed 1969, 5751 Lyndale Avenue South) opened in 1950. By the 1960s, the owners of the Lyndale were running four drive-in operations under the name Porky’s Drive-In. (These included locations at 3118 West Lake Street and 2107 East Lake Street. Neither appear to be extant).15

Physically, both fast food restaurants and drive-ins shared a number of characteristics. Vehicular oriented signage was designed to attract business. Signage was generally large and located on tall structures; it incorporated lights, characters, and branded advertising elements. Buildings were often sited further back on lots, leaving pedestrian space near the street and public sidewalk. Ample parking lots were located to the side or rear of the sites.

Figure 8.5 White Castle No. 8 was originally located at 329 Central Avenue, shown here. White Castle Restaurant, August 26, 1954. Minneapolis Star Journal Tribune, Minnesota Historical Society.

15 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 208 – 211; Bob Murphy, “Drive-In Café Trade Booms as Summer Looms,” Minneapolis Star, May 30, 1949; “Welcome to Porky’s,” Minneapolis Star, May 30, 1949; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 119; Blade, “Grabbing a Bite,” 12.

8.8

Figure 8.6 The locally-owned Lyndale Drive-In opened at 5751 Lyndale Avenue South in 1950. Lyndale Drive-In, October 5, 1956. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

As their seasonal limitations and reputations as rowdy teenage hang-outs spots led to the decline of drive-ins during the mid-1960s, they were replaced by a new style of fast food restaurant offering self-service and a very limited menu. Epitomized by McDonalds (founded in 1948), the “drive-up” eliminated teenage carhops in favor of fast service and quick customer turnover rates. Other drive-up food chains, such as Burger King (1953) and Kentucky Fried Chicken (1955), followed the McDonalds model. Later, indoor seating, drive-thru windows, and expanded menus were added to this format. When the Arab oil embargo of 1973 discouraged automobile travel, suburban drive-up chains expanded to urban areas to attract customers arriving on foot or public transit. In Minnesota, drive-up suburban chains did not arrive in significant numbers until the 1950s; though most of these have been demolished, several examples remain in Twin Cities suburbs, such as the Dairy Queen No. 1 (1947) at 1720 Lexington Avenue North in Roseville.16

Diners, another type of restaurant offering fast, cheap food, boomed during the 1920s in downtowns and along taxpayer strips. These manufactured lunch cars offered a quick means of starting a business and an image that was readily familiar to residents across American cities. During the Depression, diners expanded their operations and their clientele, serving food at all hours of the day to a broad range of patrons. After World War II, the designs of diner cars shifted to feature flat roofs, larger exterior parapets, fluted stainless steel siding, and large exterior windows. Beginning in the mid- 1950s, diners began to fall out of favor as drive-ins and fast-food chains gained popularity. Those that survived redecorated with exaggerated architectural features, or abandoned the car look altogether in favor of more permanent-looking structures.17

16 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 212 - 216; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 116 – 117. 17 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 216 – 222.

8.9

In Minneapolis, the Band Box Hamburger Shop, established in 1939, was purportedly the first local hamburger diner chain. The first Band Box Hamburger Shop (1939, 729 10th Street South) was located at 729 10th Street South; by 1950, there were 15 Band Box diners on major commercial streets in central, north, and northeast Minneapolis and Columbia Heights.18 All Band Box diners were centrally owned, and all featured manufactured, Streamline Moderne-style buildings custom- designed by the Butler Manufacturing Company. However, company owners allowed for variation in menu, interior atmosphere, and advertising between locations. The chain declined in the late 1950s, and only one location continued to operate after 1972.19

Figure 8.7 The Minneapolis diner chain Band Box operated fifteen locations throughout the city by 1950. Band Box diner, c. 1945. Carl R. Bakule, Minnesota Historical Society.

18 For a complete list of all fifteen locations, see Kathleen O’Neill, “The Band Box Hamburger Shops: Minneapolis’s First Homegrown Diner Chain,” Hennepin History 64 no. 1 (Winter 2005): 7. 19 Kathleen O’Neill, “The Band Box Hamburger Shops: Minneapolis’s First Homegrown Diner Chain,” Hennepin History 64 no. 1 (Winter 2005): 4 – 17.

8.10

Movie Theaters

The drive-in movie theater was invented in 1933 but rose to prominence during the postwar era. Typically located in a field by a highway, the drive-in featured a screen shielded by a wind-resistant field house (later known as a screen tower), inclined ramps arranged in a semicircle facing the screen, and a projection booth. Improvements in technology and design during the 1940s (including the routing of movie sound through in-car speakers and the addition of restrooms and snack bars to theater facilities) led to the proliferation of drive-in theaters after World War II, even as attendance at traditional movie theaters declined. The concept was attractive to the many postwar families with young children, and its informal nature (much like the drive-in restaurant) proved appealing to Americans of all ages. Taking their cue from traditional theater operators, who utilized their building façades as giant advertisements, drive-in operators used the back of their screen towers to attract the attention of motorists driving along the highway, ornamenting the towers with buttresses, stepped wing walls, and giant images. Double-sided attraction boards near the edge of the highway replaced the traditional theater marquee. During the 1950s, the switch to Cinemascope film-making led operators to install wider screens. As the public became more familiar with drive-ins, elaborate architecture and advertising became less useful, and new drive-ins were often constructed with prefabricated screen towers. After reaching a peak in 1958, drive-ins declined as land at the outskirts of metropolitan areas became more valuable and zoning laws more restrictive.20

By World War II, downtown Minneapolis contained most of the city’s older movie theaters, constructed before 1915 to serve pedestrian traffic, while neighborhood commercial nodes featured theaters located on streetcar lines constructed between 1915 and the early 1940s. As the movie industry prospered during the Great Depression, some existing theaters were remodeled with Art Deco or Streamline Moderne façades, and new theaters such as the Hollywood Theater (1935, 2815 Johnson Street Northeast) were constructed. Traditional theaters experienced a brief revival after World War II, as evidenced by the construction of the Riverview Theater (1948, 3800 42nd Avenue South) and the widely acclaimed Terrace Theater in Robbinsdale (1951, razed 2016). However, the rise of television, drive-in theaters, and suburban theaters eventually contributed to the decline of neighborhood and downtown Minneapolis theaters. The first drive-in theater in the Twin Cities, the Bloomington Drive-In, was constructed in 1947 at 12th Avenue South and 78th Street. Eventually, about 20 drive-in theaters were built in the Twin Cities area, including in the suburbs of Roseville, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Spring Park, Maplewood, Cottage Grove, Inver Grove, Eden Prairie, Edina, and Fridley; by 2019, only one (Vali-Hi in Lake Elmo) remained.21

20 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 153 – 167. 21 National Register of Historic Places, Hollywood Theater, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #13001145, section 8, p. 8, 14, 22, 23; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 136 – 141; Loren Green, “Bring Your Blanket, Tent or Boat to These Minnseota Movies Under the Stars,” Explore Minnesota, accessed October 25, 2019, https://www.exploreminnesota.com/travel-ideas/minnesota-movies-under-the-stars/; William E. Geist, “Drive-Ins Doing a Slow Fade on the Big Screen,” Minneapolis Star and Tribune, June 9, 1983.

8.11

PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION22

For Minneapolis residents looking for recreation outside of their vehicles, the city’s municipal parks provided opportunities for both organized and self-directed outdoor activities. By 1935, the city’s renowned park system encompassed 5,242 acres of park land and 55 miles of parkway.23 Though the Minneapolis Park Board’s funding dwindled during the Great Depression, federal funding through New Deal relief agencies (primarily the Works Progress Administration, later known as the Work Projects Administration) provided capital for improvement and maintenance as well as recreational programs. Depression-era projects included the conversion of marshes to lagoons along Bassett’s Creek in Wirth Park, the paving of 15 percent of the city’s parkways, the construction of retaining walls at Lake Harriet, Lake Calhoun, Lake of Isles, and Powderhorn Lake as well as sidewalks throughout the city’s parks, and the construction of stairs and bridges at Minnehaha Creek.24 Across the nation, the desire for inexpensive forms of recreation during the Great Depression led to increasing interest in public recreation programs. This was true in Minneapolis, where the park board’s recreation programs expanded and flourished with the support of federal work-relief funds. Year-round programming was provided for the first time, and program offerings were expanded to include arts, dance, music, and handcrafts. Organized recreational opportunities included community “sings,” playground pageants for children, and municipal sports leagues.

Self-directed leisure activities included swimming in the city’s lakes and skating at park skating facilities (such as Powderhorn Park). During the 1930s, new baseball and softball fields and tennis courts were added to The Parade (1893 and later), a large recreational park to the southwest of downtown Minneapolis.25 Tennis was particularly popular in Minneapolis; by the early 1940s, the Park Board maintained 199 tennis courts within its parks. The 220 acres of neighborhood parks and playgrounds acquired by the park board during the Great Depression (most donated by the city or state, or acquired at low cost) provided additional opportunities for leisure and recreation.26

22 A thorough history of the Minneapolis park system has been developed by David C. Smith in City of Parks: The Story of Minneapolis Parks (Minneapolis, MN: The Foundation for Minneapolis Park, 2008). The following paragraphs are largely a summary of that information. The unpublished manuscript “Minneapolis Parks and Recreation: A History of the Park and Recreation Board since World War II” by C. Ben Wright (c. 1981), available in the James K. Hosmer Special Collections at the Minneapolis Central Library, includes an appendix listing every Minneapolis park, its date of establishment, and its size. Finally, David C. Smith’s Parks, Lakes, Trails and So Much More: An Overview of the Histories of MPRB Properties ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2008) provides historic profiles for each of Minneapolis’s parks. These sources should be consulted for more information on specific Minneapolis parks developed during the Modern Era. 23 C. Ben Wright, “Minneapolis Parks and Recreation: A History of the Park and Recreation Board since World War II,” (unpublished manuscript, c. 1981), 2, 12, typescript, James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library; David C. Smith, City of Parks: The Story of Minneapolis Parks (Minneapolis, MN: The Foundation for Minneapolis Parks, 2008), 113. 24 Smith, City of Parks, 85, 104, 112, 119, 144. 25 Smith, City of Parks, 85, 121 – 139, 144 – 146; David C. Smith, Parks, Lakes, Trails and So Much More: An Overview of the Histories of MPRB Properties ([Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2008), 177, 215, 297 – 305. 26 The last acquisition included in these 220 acres was made in 1941. The Park Board also acquired and developed two and a half acres of land in front of the new federal post office in downtown Minneapolis as Pioneers Square. See Smith, City of Parks, 147 - 149.

8.12

Figure 8.8 Speed skating was popular at Powderhorn Park; in 1936, the Winter Olympic team trials were held at this location. Powderhorn Park, January 18, 1942. Minneapolis and St. Paul Newspaper Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

In 1940, Minneapolis launched its first Aquatennial festival, a tribute to the city’s water resources intended to bolster the city’s image in an era of labor conflict, gangster violence, and economic depression. The festival was held primarily on park property, including a rodeo at The Parade park grounds and motorboat races and sailing regatta at Lake Calhoun. The Aqua Follies, a choreographed aquatic revue show, held their first Aquatennial debut in 1941 on Cedar Lake, but later moved to a pool with diving towers constructed on Wirth Lake (razed) specifically for the show. The 1940 Aquatennial began a tradition that would continue through the Modern Era, with events that included air shows, parades, art shows, and fireworks.27

27 Smith, City of Parks, 149; Samuel Meshbesher, “Minneapolis Aquatennial,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified December 17, 2018, https://www.mnopedia.org/event/minneapolis-aquatennial#; Nina McGuire and Barbara Budd, An Uncommon Guide to the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN: Viking Press, 1970), 10; Nyberg, Odin Lee’s Condensed Guide to Minneapolis, 42.

8.13

Figure 8.9 Beginning in 1941, the Aqua Follies provided entertainment at Minneapolis’s Aquatennial Festival. The special pool shown here (razed) was constructed specifically for the show at Wirth Lake. Minneapolis Aqua Follies, c. 1952. Minnesota Historical Society.

In the fifteen years that followed World War II, the Minneapolis park board established new neighborhood parks in underserved neighborhoods and new recreation centers at existing playgrounds in an attempt to correct deficiencies in its recreation system. Acquisitions, primarily purchased from other city agencies or the state, included 39 acres at Bossen Field (originally Airport Park) at 28th Avenue South and 56th Street, 25 acres at the North Mississippi Park along the riverfront north of the Camden Bridge, the Meadowbrook and Gross golf courses, 59 acres along Shingle Creek in north Minneapolis, 42 acres around Cedar Lake (completing park board ownership of the last significant public body of water in the City), and the 26-acre expansion of Minnehaha Park, in addition to small neighborhood parks. New construction at city parks included the Bossen Field Park Shelter (1959, 5701 28th Avenue South) at Bossen Field Park, designed in 1959 by the renowned modernist architectural firm of Elizabeth “Lisl” and Winston Close. Cooperation with the Minneapolis School Board led to the development of joint school-park projects, such as Kenney Elementary School and Kenny Park at 1328 58th Street West (1955); collaboration with the Minneapolis School Board would continue into the 1970s. The park board added year-round programming to seven additional parks and summer programming to 21 additional playgrounds, and began a partnership with the University of Minnesota in its summer playground and after-school playground supervision programs. By 1963, a tour guide to Minneapolis noted that the Park Board

8.14

supervised “recreational activity at 51 baseball fields, 159 softball fields, and 200 tennis courts.”28 Across the nation and in Minneapolis, the popularity of golf rebounded in the postwar era, and the number of golf rounds played at city golf courses peaked in 1963. The recreational facilities at the Parade were upgraded with the construction of Parade Stadium in 1951 (1951, razed 1990, Parade Park), which hosted high school football games during the 1950s and 60s.29 The postwar era also saw the first collaboration between the park board and the Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority in 1959, when the park board purchased Harrison Park at 503 Irving Avenue North in the Glenwood public housing development. Collaboration with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority continued through the 1970s. Self-guided recreation included sailing on city lakes, an activity which increased in popularity during this time, as well as the long-standing traditions of ice skating, swimming, and tennis. Even as Minneapolis’ population began to decline after the mid- 1950s, the city’s parks remained popular, due in part to suburbanites who frequented the park system.30

Beginning in the early 1960s, the construction of freeways began to eat into Minneapolis parks, eventually leading to the loss of 30 acres of park land. However, the mid-1960s through the late 1970s saw a significant expansion in the park’s recreation facilities and neighborhood parks, with 37 new recreation centers constructed and 14 new parks added to underserved neighborhoods in the central city. Beginning in 1972, the park board also corrected deferred maintenance on its parkways with a several-year reconstruction project. Outdoor activities highlighted by a 1970 Twin Cities travel guide included parkway bicycling, sailing on Lakes Como, Harriett, and Calhoun, ice skating, golfing at the city’s eleven public and private courses, and tennis.31

28 Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis City of Lakes, August 12, 1963, Minnesota Historical Society. 29 The tennis center at the Parade was relocated to Nicollet Park to make way for the new stadium. 30 David C. Smith, “Parade Stadium, Minneapolis,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified July 8, 2019, https://www.mnopedia.org/place/parade-stadium-minneapolis; David C. Smith, City of Parks: The Story of Minneapolis Parks (Minneapolis, The Foundation for Minneapolis Parks, 2008), 151 – 165, 170; Nyberg, Odin Lee’s Condensed Guide to Minneapolis, 51 – 53; Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis City of Lakes, August 12, 1963, Minnesota Historical Society; David C. Smith and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, “Bossen Field Park,” Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, accessed November 21, 2019, https://www.minneapolisparks.org/parks__destinations/parks__lakes/bossen_field_park/; Elizabeth and Winston Close, “Bossen Field Shelter Building,” September 1959; Charlene Roise et al., Phase I/Phase II Architecture History Investigation for the Proposed Southwest Transitway Project, Hennepin County, Minnesota, vol. 2 (authorized and sponsored by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and the Metropolitan Council, 2012), Section 4.1, p. 9. 31 Smith, City of Parks, 163 – 195; McGuire and Budd, An Uncommon Guide to the Twin Cities, 102, 102 – 117.

8.15

Figure 8.10 Parade Stadium, constructed at Parade park in 1951, provided a venue for high school football games during the 1950s and 1960s. Other athletic facilities at the Parade are visible in the foreground and background. Parade Stadium, July 17, 1952. Minnesota Historical Society.

Minnesota’s long winters encouraged Minneapolis residents to find ways to enjoy the outdoors during the cold season. One of the city’s more notable winter sports was speedskating, for which the city earned the title of “America’s speed-skating capital.” By the mid-1930s, Minneapolis had five speed skating clubs. In 1936 and 1948, the city hosted the speed-skating trials for the U.S. Olympic Team at Powderhorn Park, one of the country’s best speed-skating tracks. (The Powderhorn track was moved to Lake Harriet in the early 1960s, and the Olympic trials were held there in 1963.) The Twin Cities produced notable skaters such as Dorothy “Dot” Franey, Minnesota’s first world-class female speed skater, and Ken Bartholomew, one of the four Minneapolis residents selected for the 1948 U.S. Olympic speed skating team. The 10,000 Lakes speed skating meet, inaugurated in the early 1930s, was held at Minneapolis lakes during the Modern Era. Minneapolis residents also took advantage of recreational ice-skating opportunities at public parks; by 1963, a city travel guide noted that there were 61 ice rinks in the city.32

32 Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis City of Lakes, August 12, 1963, Minnesota Historical Society; Smith, City of Parks, 130, 145, 167; David C. Smith, “Ice Queens: The First Female Speed Skaters in Minnesota,” March 26, 2019, Minneapolis

8.16

Skiing, including ski jumping, was another local pastime. By 1930, the Minneapolis Park Board maintained five ski jumps in Glenwood/Theodore Wirth, Columbia, Powderhorn, and Minnehaha parks. The Theodore Wirth ski jump (by 1909, razed, Theodore Wirth Park), constructed in 1921, continued as a prime ski jumping training and competition location in the U.S. through the 1970s. In the 1960s and 70s, Minneapolis boasted national ski jumping champions such as John Balfanz, Jay Martin, and Jerry Martin.33

In Minneapolis, as elsewhere in the United States, female participation in many sports was restricted during the Modern Era. Though female athletics had increased in popularity during the first half of the twentieth century, women’s sports were curtailed during the midcentury era, influenced by the belief that many sports would encourage the development of traits in conflict with middle-class ideas about femininity. In the Twin Cities, softball leagues sponsored by the local park boards and businesses from the 1920s through the 1960s gave some publicity to women’s athletics, but in general, swimming, golf, and tennis were perceived as the most appropriate athletic opportunities for American women. Additionally, from 1940 until the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, girls in the Minneapolis public school system could not earn high-school letters for athletics or play varsity sports. During the 1960s and 70s, these norms began to change, in part due to women’s teams such as the high-caliber Avantis slow-pitch Minneapolis softball team (formed in 1961) and the feminist Wilder Ones recreational division Minneapolis softball team (1973).34 SPECTATOR SPORTS

For Minneapolis residents who preferred to watch rather than participate in sporting activities, events featuring the city’s professional leagues offered another form of recreation during the Modern Era. During the Great Depression, the successes of the University of Minnesota’s Golden Gophers football team were welcome diversions from economic hardship. Between 1934 and 1941, the team won four national championships and six Big Ten Conference championships under the leadership of head coach Bernard “Bernie” Bierman with famous players that included Francis “Pug” Lund and Bruce Smith. The Golden Gophers played at Memorial Stadium (1924, razed 1992) on the University of Minnesota’s campus until the early 1980s. Between 1950 and 1971, Williams Arena, originally known as the University of Minnesota Fieldhouse (1928, remodeled and renamed in 195035, renovated in 1993 and 1997, 1925 University Avenue Southeast) had the largest capacity of any college basketball facility in the United States. The Minneapolis Auditorium (1927, razed

Park History, https://minneapolisparkhistory.com/category/winter-sports/; “Bieri in Form for 10,000 Lakes Meet,” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, January 23, 1943; “Near-Record Skating Field Enters 10,000 Lakes Meet,” Minneapolis Star, February 11, 1966; “Thometz, Strot Sweep All of Class in 10,000 Lakes,” Minneapolis Star, February 3, 1975; Dick Gordon, “Klanchnik Saves Day in Skating,” Minneapolis Star, February 3, 1969; “Minneapolis – America’s Speed Skating Capital,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, February 9, 1947. 33 David C. Smith, “”Elusive Minneapolis Ski Jumps: Keegan’s Lake, Mount Pilgrim and Glenwood (Theodore Wirth) Park,” February 22, 2011, Minneapolis Park History, https://minneapolisparkhistory.com/2011/02/22/elusive-minneapolis-ski-jumps/; Jay Weiner, “Sky High No Longer,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, January 15, 2002; 34 Anne Enke, “Pioneers, Players, and Politicos: Women’s Softball in Minnesota,” Minnesota History 58, no. 4 (Winter 2002 – 2003), 210 – 222. 35 In 1950, Williams Arena was divided into two sections, with a hockey arena on one side and a basketball arena on the other. See “Williams Arena,” University of Minnesota, accessed October 23, 2019, https://gophersports.com/sports/2018/5/21/facilities-williams-arena-html.aspx.

8.17

1988, 211 East Grant Street) hosted a key match between wrestler Bronko Nagurski and Lou Plummer in 1936. Nagurski, a former Gopher football star, contributed to the popularity of professional wrestling in Minnesota during the 1930s.

Figure 8.11 The Minneapolis Auditorium, constructed in 1927 (razed 1988), hosted popular sporting events during the Modern Era. Minneapolis Auditorium, 1966. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

Baseball was also a point of local interest during the 1930s, as the Minneapolis Millers minor league won the American Association baseball championships in 1932, 1934, and 1935. Through the mid- 1950s, Minneapolis fans could watch the Millers at their home field, Nicollet Park (1912, razed 1955, Nicollet Avenue and 31st Street) in south Minneapolis. The Minneapolis Millerettes, a member of the American Girls Professional Baseball League, also played at Nicollet Park for the first half of their 1944 season (the team’s tenure in Minneapolis was short-lived, as it moved to Fort Wayne in 1945). Though public participation in golf dropped during the Great Depression, Minneapolis also boasted notable golfers Patricia “Patty” Berg and Solomon Hughes. Berg, who rose to fame as a teenager in the 1930s, won over 80 professional and amateur tournaments between the mid-1930s and the mid-1970s, and established the Ladies’ Professional Golfers Association. Hughes, who moved to Minneapolis from Alabama in 1943, was excluded from professional positions at the city’s public courses and private country clubs due to his African American heritage, but helped to integrate the St. Paul Open tournament and Minneapolis’s Hiawatha Golf Course clubhouse. Minneapolis’s Ice Follies, an ice-skating show that combined aspects of ballet, circus, and vaudeville, performed at the

8.18

Minneapolis Arena (1923, razed, 2900 Dupont Avenue South) from the mid-1930s through at least the late 1950s. The University of Minnesota’s hockey team played at the Minneapolis Arena before moving to Williams Arena in the 1950s, and the Minneapolis Hockey Millers of the American Amateur Hockey League also held games in the Arena.36

In addition to professional sports, high school basketball enjoyed special popularity with Twin Cities residents through the early 1960s, with thousands of fans watching the annual state high school championships at Williams Arena and the Minneapolis Auditorium. High school hockey also grew in popularity after an annual championship tournament was established in the Twin Cities in 1945.37

36 Dave Kenney, Twin Cities Album: A Visual History (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 163 - 165; Ray Christensen, Tales from the Minnesota Gophers: A Collection of the Greatest Gopher Stories Ever Told (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2014), 7, 102; “Memorial Stadium (1924 – 1981),” University of Minnesota, accessed October 23, 2019, https://gophersports.com/sports/2018/5/21/sports-m-footbl-spec-rel-memorial-stadium-html.aspx; “Williams Arena,” University of Minnesota, accessed October 23, 2019, https://gophersports.com/sports/2018/5/21/facilities-williams-arena- html.aspx; James K. Hosmer Special Collections Library, “Minneapolis Auditorium Collection Finding Aid,” May 24, 2016, https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and-Services/Finding-aids/M/2000-06-Minneapolis- Auditorium.pdf; Kristin M. Anderson and Christopher W. Kimball, “Designing the National Pastime: Twin Cities Baseball Parks,” Minnesota History 58, no. 7 (Fall 2003): 339 – 352; Thomas B. Jones, “Caucasians Only: Solomon Hughes, the PGA, and the 1947 St. Paul Open Golf Tournament,” Minnesota History 58 no. 8 (Winter 2003 – 2004): 382 – 393; Smith, Parks, Lakes, Trails and So Much More, 68 – 69; “Minneapolis Arena,” Hennepin County Library Special Collections Tumblr, Accessed October 23, 2019, https://hclib.tumblr.com/post/46780235328/minneapolis-arena-2900-dupont-avenue-south-1929; Matthew Lindaman, “Up! Up! Stadium: Planning and Building a War Memorial,” Minnesota History 62, no. 3 (Fall 2010): 107 – 108, 114 – 115; Stew Thornley, “The Millerettes,” in Before the Dome: Baseball in Minnesota When the Grass Was Real, ed. David Anderson (Minneapolis, MN: Nodin Press, 1993), 111 – 113; McGuire and Budd, An Uncommon Guide to the Twin Cities, 103; Nyberg, Odin Lee’s Condensed Guide to Minneapolis, 42, 51.; Hotel Vendrome, How to Enjoy Minneapolis City of Lakes: A Special Edition for Men and Women in the Armed Forces, c. 1941, p. 12, Minnesota Historical Society; Meet Me in Minneapolis (Minneapolis: Convention and Visitors Bureau, Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, c. 1950), Minnesota Historical Society. 37 Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 201; Steven R. Hoffbeck, “Hayloft Hoopsters: Legendary Lynd and the State High School Basketball Tournament,” Minnesota History 55, no. 8 (Winter 1997 – 1998), 336 – 337, 345 – 347.

8.19

Figure 8.12 Memorial Stadium, constructed in 1924 (razed 1992), was home to the University of Minnesota’s Golden Gopher football team through the Modern Era. Memorial Stadium, c. 1940. Minneapolis Journal, Minnesota Historical Society.

Minneapolis gained its first professional sports teams during the postwar era. Professional basketball arrived in Minneapolis in 1947 with the National Basketball Association’s Minneapolis Lakers. The Lakers, who played at both the Minneapolis Auditorium and the Minneapolis Armory (1936, 500 – 530 Sixth Street South), won five championships between 1947 and 1959 with well-known players such as George Mikan. The team’s success faded in the late 1950s and it relocated to Los Angeles in 1960. In an effort to attract professional teams to the area, Minneapolis businessmen and the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce supported the development of an outdoor stadium outside the city limits, in farmland located in the southern suburb of Bloomington. The Metropolitan Stadium, known as “the Met,” (1956; razed 1985) opened in 1956. For the next thirty years, the Met was the region’s foremost sports facility, eventually hosting three of the Twin Cities’ professional sports teams. The state’s first major league baseball team, the Minnesota Twins (formerly the Washington Senators), and the National Football League’s Minnesota Vikings came to Minneapolis in 1961, and the Minneapolis Kicks soccer team played its first home game in the stadium in 1976. In the 1960s, the National Hockey League’s Minnesota North Stars began playing at the new Metropolitan Sports Center (1967, razed 1994) next to the Met Stadium.38

38 “Lakers Plan ‘Home’ at Armory,” Minneapolis Star, August 19, 1959; “Lunacy Lingers On in Gopher Triple Bill,” Minneapolis Star, March 11, 1948; “De La Salle Plays in Laker Prelim,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, January 1, 1956; Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 199 – 201, 227 - 228; Linda A. Cameron, “Metropolitan Stadium, Bloomington,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified June 13, 2018, https://www.mnopedia.org/structure/metropolitan-stadium-bloomington; David Sandager, “Minnesota Vikings,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified January 26, 2018,

8.20

Figure 8.13 Metropolitan Stadium, or “the Met,” located in Bloomington, hosted Twin Cities professional football and baseball during the 1960s and 70s. Metropolitan Stadium, November 21, 1958. Norton & Peel Photograph Collection, Minnesota Historical Society.

https://www.mnopedia.org/group/minnesota-vikings; Anderson and Kimball, “Designing the National Pastime,” 339; Hoffbeck, “Hayloft Hoopsters,” 336 – 337, 345 - 347; Jason Gonzalez, “Down, Down, Down: 22 Years Ago This Week the Met Center Was Demolished,” Star Tribune, December 14, 2016, http://www.startribune.com/down-down-down-22-years-ago-this-week-the- met-center-was-demolished/406540606/; Christensen, Tales from the Minnesota Gophers, 118 – 119.

8.21

THEATER, MUSIC, AND THE ARTS39

During the Modern Era, several Minneapolis organizations founded in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the Minnesota Orchestra, the Walker Art Center, and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, remained key players in the city’s cultural landscape. The Modern Era also saw the creation of new institutions such as the Tyrone Guthrie Theater, the Children’s Theater, the Minnesota Dance Theater, and the Minnesota Opera Company. As noted by historian Dave Kenney, during the 1960s and 70s the Twin Cities’ cultural scene evolved to offer “increasingly rich cultural fare.” By the 1960s, cultural institutions in the city drew audiences from suburban and rural areas and became increasingly identified with the metropolitan region as a whole.40

One of Minneapolis’ prominent cultural institutions during the Modern Era was the Walker Art Center. The center had its roots in the private collections of lumber baron Thomas Barlow Walker, who sponsored the construction of the Walker Art Gallery on Vineland Place in the Lowry Hill neighborhood in 1927 (1927, razed 1969, 1710 Lyndale Avenue South). The museum had few public visitors until 1939, when it was reorganized as an art center under the Federal Art Project (an arts program sponsored by the federal relief agency the Works Progress Administration). Renamed the Walker Art Center (WAC), the organization exhibited the work of local artists, provided free classes, held demonstrations and lectures, and sponsored traveling exhibitions. The WAC was the largest community art center sponsored by the Works Progress Administration, and it proved to be a popular local institution, with 111,000 visitors during its first year of operation. When the Federal Art Project ended in 1943, WAC continued as a community art center. In 1944, the building’s façade was renovated, replacing its original Moorish design with a Moderne-style façade. During the 1940s, the WAC began to display an increasing orientation to contemporary art, a trend that continued with programming and acquisitions during the 1950s and 60s. The 1960s also saw the expansion of the center’s performing arts program, and attempts to engage students, teachers, and artists in the center’s programming. The need for larger facilities led to the demolition of the original 1927 building in 1969; a new Walker Art Center (1971, later additions, 725 Vineland Place) designed by Edward Larrabee Barnes was constructed at the same location in 1971. 41

39 The historic context Minneapolis Music History, 1850 – 2000: A Context by Charlene Roise, et al. (December 2018) provides information on popular music, including jazz, swing, be-bop, folk, blues, R & B, funk, and rock and roll, as well as performance venues, recording studios, and other sites associated with popular music ensembles. Accordingly, this chapter of the Minneapolis in the Modern Era context study focuses on the city’s leading performing arts ensembles during the Modern Era and does not address popular music. 40 Kenney, Twin Cities Album, 224 – 225; Jeffery A. Hess, Their Splendid Legacy: The First 100 Years of the Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts (Minneapolis, MN: The Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, 1985), 70. 41 Emma Dill, “Walker Art Center,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified May 15, 2018, https://www.mnopedia.org/place/walker-art-center; Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., “The WPA Federal Art Projects in Minnesota, 1935 – 1943,” Minnesota History 53, no. 5 (Spring 1993): 180 – 181; Walker Art Center: A History ([Minneapolis?]: Walker Art Center, 1985), 3 – 7.

8.22

Figure 8.14 The 1971 Walker Art Center, constructed on the site of the former 1927 center, was a prominent Minneapolis cultural institution during the Modern Era. Walker Art Center, August 6, 1975. Steve Plattner, Minnesota Historical Society.

The Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, an organization founded in the late nineteenth century, gave rise to another museum and a school that would factor prominently in the Minneapolis art scene during the Modern Era. By 1930, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (1915, additions and renovations in 1974 and 2006, 2400 3rd Avenue South) had been located in south Minneapolis for fifteen years. Notable milestones during the 1930s and 40s included a boycott of the Institute’s Twin City exhibition by the Twin Cities Artist Union in the mid-1930s and the establishment of a children’s sketch club in 1947. During the 1950s, the museum began to develop a modern art collection, deaccessioning some of its older holdings to make way for the new. During the 1960s and 70s, it professionalized its operations and broadened its scope of collections to create a more comprehensive, balanced set of holdings. In 1966, the museum more than doubled its exhibition space with the opening of the Herschel V. Jones print Gallery. The 1950s and 60s also saw transformation of the Society’s Minneapolis School of Art (c. 1912, later additions, 2400 3rd Avenue South) from a vocational school into a nationally-recognized college offering four-year, accredited degrees. Attendance at the school (renamed the College of Art and Design in 1970) doubled between 1963 and 1974. In 1970, the Society commissioned architect Kenzo Tange to design a new building for the College and a remodel and expansion of the Institute’s facilities. The expansion included a theater addition at the Institute to house the Children’s Theatre Company, a nationally-acclaimed organization affiliated with the Institute since 1965. The expansion and renovation were complete by 1974.42

42 Hess, Their Splendid Legacy, 33 – 77; James K. Hosmer Special Collections Library, “Minneapolis Institute of Art Collection,”

8.23

In addition to the Walker Art Center and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, other museums operating in Minneapolis during the Modern Era included the American Swedish Institute Museum (1903, 2600 Park Avenue), the James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History (1940, 1964 addition, 10 Church Street Southeast), the Hennepin County Historical Society Museum (1919, 2303 3rd Avenue South), and the Science Museum and Planetarium operating at the Minneapolis Public Library at 300 Nicollet Mall (1961; razed, 300 Nicollet Mall).43

Among the key institutions in the Minneapolis music scene during the Modern Era was the Minnesota Orchestra. Formed in 1903 as the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra, the ensemble’s status rose during the 1930s under music director Eugene Ormandy, and it experienced a “golden age” under iconic director Dimitri Mitropoulos during the late 1930s and 1940s. During the postwar era, the orchestra produced a series of recordings with Mercury Records and embarked on its first international tour to the Middle East. In addition to offering standard evening concerts at Northrup Auditorium (1929, 84 Church Street Southeast) on the University of Minnesota’s campus (the orchestra’s home from 1930 until 1974), the orchestra accommodated younger audiences with Young People’s Concerts and, beginning in 1954, visits to area schools. During the 1960s and 70s, the orchestra experienced its greatest period of growth; between 1960 and 1979, its annual budget expanded from $730,000 to $7 million. To increase its regional appeal, the ensemble changed its name from the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra to the Minnesota Orchestra in 1968. As its concert season expanded to include more of the summer months during the late 1960s and early 1970s, the orchestra performed outside Northrup Auditorium on Northrop Mall, at metro-area parks, and at the Minneapolis Auditorium during the “Summer Pops Jubilee.” By 1980, the Minnesota Orchestra was the largest nonprofit in the state. In 1974, the orchestra left Northrup Auditorium for the newly-constructed Orchestra Hall (1974; remodeled 2013, 1111 Nicollet Mall) on Nicollet Mall.44

October 25, 2016, https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and-Services/Finding-aids/M/2013-01- Minneapolis-Institute-of-Art-2.pdf. 43 McGuire and Budd, An Uncommon Guide to the Twin Cities, 26 – 47; “Minneapolis Central Library,” Minneapolis Central Library, accessed October 28, 2019, https://www.hclib.org/minneapoliscentral; “Hennepin History Museum: Celebrating 80 years” on Display in Hennepin Gallery through August 16,” news release, August 21, 2018, https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MNHENNE/bulletins/1f8bcf4; Molly Guthrey, “A Brief History of the Bell Museum,” Twin Cities Pioneer Press, July 12, 2018; Campus History Map, University of Minnesota, accessed October 28, 2019, https://apps.lib.umn.edu/campushistory/; Kim A O’Connell, “Connecting to the Castle: The American Swedish Institute,” Architect, November 1, 2013, 44 Roy Close, “One Hundred by Nine: The Music Directors,” Mary Ann Feldman, “On the Road to Fame,” Pamela Hill Nettleton, “Musical Values – A Community’s Pride,” John Coy, “A Rare Privilege and Joy,” and Brian Newhouse, “Sounds of Summer,” in Minnesota Orchestra at One Hundred (Minneapolis: Minnesota Orchestral Association, 2002), 2 – 17, 32 – 43, 60 – 61, 76 – 83, 88, 134 - 137; Norman K. Risjord, A Popular History of Minnesota (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 247 – 248; Hess, Their Splendid Legacy, 70.

8.24

Figure 8.15 Orchestra Hall, the home of the Minnesota Orchestra, was constructed in 1974 on Nicollet Mall. Orchestra Hall, July 24, 1975. Steve Plattner, Minnesota Historical Society.

The construction of the orchestra’s new hall along Nicollet Mall was another step in the redevelopment of downtown Minneapolis, which by the early 1970s had included the conversion of several blocks of Nicollet Avenue to a pedestrian mall (see Chapter 03, Business and Industry, for more information on the development of Nicollet Mall). An arrangement between the Minnesota Orchestral Association, the Minneapolis Park Board, and the City of Minneapolis provided for the development of an outdoor event and gathering space in tandem with the development of the new concert hall. Peavey Plaza (1975, 1101 Nicollet Mall), designed by nationally-recognized landscape architect M. Paul Friedberg, opened adjacent to Orchestra Hall in 1975. By the 1980s, the Plaza hosted the Minnesota Orchestra’s Sommerfest, as well as blues festivals, jazz concerts, community artistic activities, and other events. It also served as an informal gathering space and popular lunch spot for downtown office workers.45

Among the newcomers to the Minneapolis Modern Era music scene was the Center Opera Company. During the 1950s, Twin Cities residents displayed a strong interest in opera, stimulated by the annual tours of the Metropolitan Opera of New York and the local St. Paul Opera Company. The Center Opera Company, founded in 1963 by the Center Arts Council affiliated with the Walker Art Center, was created to perform contemporary and experimental works in chamber opera, as well as lesser-known, older works. Center Opera performed its first five seasons entirely at the Guthrie Theater; later, it utilized the Cedar Village Theater, Hennepin Methodist Church, and

45 National Register of Historic Places, Peavey Plaza, Hennepin County, Minnesota, National Register Nomination #12001173, p. 6 – 14.

8.25 other locations. Center Opera became an independent organization in 1969 and completed its first national tour in 1971. As the organization’s touring increased, it strengthened its regional identity by changing its name to the Minnesota Opera Company in 1972.46

Another new addition to the Minneapolis cultural scene in the 1960s, the Tyrone Guthrie Theater (1963, razed 2006, 725 Vineland Place), was the brainchild of its director Sir Tyrone Guthrie and two of his colleagues, Oliver Rea and Peter Zeisler. In the words of former Guthrie theater production manager Peg Guilfoyle, “the Guthrie became a prototype for an important new kind of theater, contrasting with the commercial environment of Broadway…[which was] not conducive to producing the great works of literature, to cultivating the artists’ talents, or to nourishing the audience over time.” Instead, the Guthrie would employ “a resident acting company that would perform the classics in rotating repertory – several plays seen at the same time – with the highest professional standards.”47 After considering several cities, Guthrie and his associates selected Minneapolis for the location of the new theater. Land behind the Walker Art Center was donated by the T. B. Walker Foundation, and architect Ralph Rapson was commissioned to design the building. With semi-circular seating around a central stage, the “thrust theater” met Guthrie’s goal of eliminating space between the audience and the actors, and also ensured that no audience member sat farther than 52 feet from the stage. When the theater opened with a performance of Hamlet in May of 1963, it drew national and international attention. The Guthrie attracted not only adults but also students, who attended special series of student matinees; touring productions also came to high schools and colleges. In 1968, the Minnesota Theater Company opened two additional theaters, one in St. Paul and an experimental theater called The Other Place (construction date unknown, razed 1975, 1526 Harmon Place) in Minneapolis.48

46 “Center Opera, St. Paul Orchestra Get Grants,” Minneapolis Star, May 26, 1970; Allan Hobert, “Center, St. Paul Opera Companies Making Policy Changes,” Minneapolis Tribune, September 7, 1969; Robin Gehl, “Minnesota Opera,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified July 8, 2019, https://www.mnopedia.org/group/minnesota-opera; Mike Steele, “What’s Doing? Entertainment News,” Minneapolis Tribune, October 8, 1972; James K. Hosmer Special Collections Library, “Minnesota Opera Collection Finding Aid,” October 25, 2016, https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and- Services/Finding-aids/M/2008-01-Minnesota-Opera-2.pdf. 47 Peg Guilfoyle, The Guthrie Theater: Images, History, and Inside Stories (Minneapolis, MN: Nodin Press, 2006), 27. 48 Norman K. Risjord, A Popular History of Minnesota (St. Paul, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005), 243 – 245; Edwin L. Bolton, “The Other Place’s Dan Bly Looks Forward to Big Challenge,” Minneapolis Star, June 16, 1970; Allan Holbert, “No Tuxes, Champagne – Just Fine Theater at Other Place,” Minneapolis Tribune, January 12, 1968; Peg Guilfoyle, The Guthrie Theater: Images, History, and Inside Stories (Minneapolis, MN: Nodin Press, 2006), 27 – 43; Jacob Marcott, “Guthrie Theater,” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society, last modified August 27, 2019, https://www.mnopedia.org/group/guthrie-theater.

8.26

Figure 8.16 The Tyrone Guthrie Theater, constructed in 1963, drew international and national attention. Tyrone Guthrie Theater, 1974. Minnesota Historical Society.

Other notable performing arts institutions operating in Minneapolis during the Modern Era included the Minnesota Dance Theater and the Children’s Theater. The Minnesota Dance Theater, first known as the Contemporary Dance Playhouse, was founded in 1962, and served as a training ground for local music theater dancers. By 1969, it held performances at the Cedar Village Theater (1948, later alterations, 416 Cedar Avenue South). The organization also appears to have operated the Minnesota Dance Theater School.49 The Children’s Theater was founded in 1961 as the Moppet Players, a professional theater company geared towards young audiences. The organization’s name change in 1965 marked the beginning of an association with the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. In 1969, the company established an accredited, theater-based grade school and high school. The Children’s Theater addition to the Minneapolis Institute of Arts at 2400 Third Avenue South was completed in 1974.50 According to a 1970 tour guide to the Twin Cities, additional theater companies included Dudley Riggs Brave New Workshop at 2605 Hennepin Avenue, Theater-in- the-Round at 229 Cedar Avenue, Friar’s Dinner Theater at 724 4th Avenue South, and Shakespeare in the Streets Company at 324 Cedar Avenue.51

49 Mike Steele, “Loyce Houlton Dies at 68,” Star Tribune, March 15, 1995; Judith Gerstel, “Kudos Won’t Pay Bills for Dance Company,” Minneapolis Star, December 12, 1969; Judith Gerstel, “Pettie Mother Proves Star as Gang Fighter,” Minneapolis Star, January 5, 1970; Joan Freese, “Intimate Performance Celebrates the Past, Present Work of Loyce Houlton,” Star Tribune, August 1, 1992; Judith Gerstel, “Dancing, Even for Men, Is Source of Pleasure,” Minneapolis Star, September 1, 1969. 50 James K. Hosmer Special Collections Library, “Children’s Theater Collection Finding Aid,” October 25, 2016, https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and-Services/Finding-aids/C-E/2012-16-Childrens-Theater-2.pdf. 51 McGuire and Budd, An Uncommon Guide to the Twin Cities, 88 – 89.

8.27

PRESERVATION OVERVIEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION

In order for a property to be designated as historic, it must meet criteria for designation outlined in federal, state, and/or local preservation frameworks. In general, a property must be recognized as a property type that is eligible for preservation, and exhibit sufficient historic significance and historic integrity for designation. This section provides an overview of federal and local designation for historic properties, and outlines the relevant laws and regulations related to each level of designation. Federal Designation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, is a key piece of federal legislation that provides for the protection of cultural resources in the United States. The NHPA established the NRHP as “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worth of preservation.” The NHPA also established State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). To be considered NRHP-eligible, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria defined by the National Park Service: Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Association with the life of a significant person.

Criterion C: Embody a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.

Criterion D: Yield, or be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.

Certain types of properties are not typically eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criteria Considerations allow for properties such as cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religions institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years to be considered eligible if they are integral parts of larger historic districts that do meet the standard criteria, or if they fall under one of the Considerations below:

Criterion Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criterion Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criterion Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his production life.

8.28

Criterion Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criterion Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified matter as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived.

Criterion Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance.

Criterion Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years it is of exceptional importance.

If a property is determined to possess historic significance under one of these criteria, its integrity is evaluated using the seven aspects of integrity. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation identifies the seven aspects of integrity to be used in evaluating properties for eligibility. These aspects of integrity are: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location: The place where the property was constructed of the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting: The physical environment/character of the place where the property played its historical role.

Design: How well the property retains combinations of elements creating its form, plan, space, structure, and style.

Materials: How physical elements were combined at specific time periods and in particular patterns to create the property.

Workmanship: How well a property retains physical evidence of the crafts of a particular time period in history.

Feeling: The combination of the property’s physical features that express the historic sense of a particular time period.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

If a property is determined to possess historical significance under one or more criteria, retains sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance, and meets any applicable criteria considerations, the property is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

8.29

City of Minneapolis Local Designation

The City of Minneapolis defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of seven criteria, as outlined in Section 599.210 of the City of Minneapolis Municipal Code. The criteria that must be considered when determining the local historic significance of a property include: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. 3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES AND RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Property types associated with the themes of arts, culture, and recreation within the context of Minneapolis in the Modern Era will be located within the city limits of Minneapolis, will have achieved significance between 1930 and 1975, and will demonstrate historic significance under one or more designation criteria in connection to these themes. This section describes the property types most likely to be associated with these themes, and the associated property types’ relationship to NRHP and local designation criteria. Associated Property Types

Specific property types associated with the themes of arts, culture, and recreation within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 are listed below. Of the property categories acknowledged by the National Register (buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects), properties associated with these themes are most likely to be buildings, districts, structures, or sites. These might include: 1) Properties associated with roadside recreation, including: a. Independent and chain gas stations b. Motels, including chain motels, two-story motels, and downtown motels c. Restaurants, including drive-ins, drive-ups, and diners d. Traditional movie theaters renovated or constructed during the Modern Era 2) Properties associated with outdoor recreation and spectator sports, including

8.30

a. Parks, including park buildings, structures, and landscapes b. Outdoor public gathering spaces c. Sporting facilities for college and professional sports 3) Properties associated with cultural institutions and “high culture” entertainment, including a. Museums b. Performance venues for classical music c. Theaters d. Offices or headquarters of cultural institutions 4) Properties associated with famous individuals who achieved significance in theater, music, the arts, or professional sports, including places of residence and work. Associated Properties’ Relationship to National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, properties must have obtained significance for one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following section provides suggestions on how properties associated with the themes of arts, culture, and recreation within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 might be evaluated for significance under these four criteria. The term “subject property” is used to refer to properties associated with these themes. For additional information, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.52 Criterion A: Association with Significant Events

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, subject properties must be “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” These events include 1) “a specific event marking an important moment in American prehistory or history” and 2) “a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation.” Some historic events and trends identified in the arts, culture, and recreation chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 with which subject properties might be associated include 1) the development of roadside recreation to accommodate increasing automobile use; 2) the popularity of public recreation programs during the Great Depression and the expansion of the Minneapolis Park Board’s recreation programs during the Modern Era; 3) the Minneapolis Park Board’s collaboration with public schools and the Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority; 4) the popularity of speed skating, ski jumping, tennis, and golf, as well as high-school basketball and hockey, in Minneapolis; 5) national and local trends in female involvement in sports; and 6) the establishment and growth of cultural institutions in the Twin Cities during the Modern Era. These events and trends are linked to several Areas of Significance defined by the National Park 53 Service in the National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. These include:

52 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. 53 For a complete list of Areas of Significance, see the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, available at

8.31

• Art: “the creation of painting, printmaking, photography, sculpture, and decorative arts” • Community Planning and Development: “the design or development of the physical structure of communities” • Conservation: “the preservation, maintenance, and management of natural or manmade resources” • Entertainment/Recreation: “the development and practice of leisure activities for refreshment, diversion, amusement, or sport” • Performing Arts: “the creation of drama, dance and music” • Social History: “the history of efforts to promote the welfare of society; the history of society and the lifeways of its social groups” Subject properties may be considered for significance under Criterion A within these Areas of Significance. For example, a park shelter that reflects the Minneapolis Park Board’s first partnership with the Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority could be considered for significance under Criterion A within the Areas of Significance of Community Planning and Development, Entertainment/Recreation, and/or Social History. The period of significance for a subject property evaluated under Criterion A should reflect the time period during which the property achieved significance. The level of significance will likely be local. Criterion B: Association with Significant Persons

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B, properties must be “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” A significant individual is one “whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.” Within the themes of arts, culture, and recreation in the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975, the individual might have achieved significance within the realms of theater, music, the arts, spectator sports, public outdoor recreation, or various forms of public entertainment. To be significant for association with an individual, a subject property must have been associated with the individual during the time when he or she achieved significance, and the property must be the best illustration of that individual’s achievements. The individual must have directly influenced the conception and/or development of the property, or have lived in the property while making their contributions to their respective fields in Minneapolis. For example, a subject property significant under Criterion B could include the house in which a famous professional sports player lived, or a theater designed by a prominent theater director. The length of association with the individual in comparison with other associated properties should also be considered. Properties identified as the best representation of an individual’s contributions might be eligible under Criterion B in the Areas of Significance of Art, Community Planning and Development, Conservation, Entertainment/Recreation, Performing Arts, and/or Social History, though other categories might apply depending on the nature of the individual’s accomplishments. The period of significance should reflect the time period during which the individual achieved significance and was associated with the property. The area of significance would likely be local, although properties associated with individuals with national or international reputations, such as Sir https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf.

8.32

Tyrone Guthrie or golfer Patricia Berg, might demonstrate significance at the state or national level. Properties significant for association with notable architects or contractors should be considered under Criterion C. Criterion C: Design/Construction

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible under Criterion C, properties must “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or…represent the work of a master, or…possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Properties that represent a type, period, or method of construction are those that illustrate, through distinctive features, a particular architectural style or construction method. They might illustrate “the pattern of features common to a particular class of resources, the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, the evolution of that class, or the transition between classes of resources.” These properties might be significant in the Areas of Significance of Engineering, “the practical application of scientific principles to design, construct, and operate equipment, machinery, and structures to serve human needs,” or Architecture, “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs.” For subject properties to be considered eligible under Criterion C in the context of this chapter, they must exemplify design trends, methods of construction, or a class of resources specific to the themes of arts, culture, and recreation. For example, a drive-in restaurant might be nominated under Criterion C for the distinctive features that characterize it as an example of a class of resources (the drive-in restaurant) developed as a form of automobile-oriented recreation during the Modern Era. Properties that appear representative of modern architectural styles or the work of a master (i.e., a notable architect, engineer, or contractor), or that possess high artistic value, should be evaluated within the context of Chapter 9, “Minneapolis Modernism: Architecture and Architects.” The level of significance would likely be local. All properties designated under Criterion C should have a period of significance synonymous with their date of construction. Criterion D: Information Potential

To be considered eligible under Criterion D, properties must “have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion D, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the themes of arts, culture, and recreation within this context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not

8.33 evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion D. Criterion Considerations:

The temporal period of this context study ends in 1975, 45 years from today’s date. Thus, it is possible that some associated properties may have achieved exceptional significance within the past 50 years under Criterion G. Associated Properties’ Relationship to Local Designation Criteria: Criterion 1: Association with Significant Events

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion A (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Association with Significant Persons or Groups

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion B (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 2. Criterion 3: Association with City or Neighborhood Identity

Cultural institutions and sporting facilities are often closely linked to the identity of a neighborhood. Thus, it is likely that some subject properties will be eligible for local designation under Criterion 3 for association with neighborhood or city identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

Properties that meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 4. Some properties considered for significance under local Criterion 4 should be evaluated under the themes of Architecture and Architects, discussed in Chapter 9, rather than under the themes of arts, culture, and recreation. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

Some properties that meet National Register Criterion C (see above) as representative of a class of resources might also be eligible under local Criterion 5. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 6. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion 7, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category.

8.34

Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the themes of arts, culture, and recreation within the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion 7 for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion 7. Integrity

To retain integrity, a subject property must retain most or all of the seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that retain integrity will have the ability to communicate their historic significance through their physical features. For more information on integrity, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Other Considerations The suburbanization and decentralization of residential, commercial, and industrial development following World War II encouraged new construction to be located outside of the Minneapolis city limits. Thus, some of the resources that best reflect the trends discussed in this chapter, such as drive- in movie theaters and motels, may be located in adjacent suburbs rather than within the city proper. In addition, alterations to some of Minneapolis’s important cultural institutions, performance spaces, and sporting facilities, such as the Tyrone Guthrie Theater and Orchestra Hall, may have compromised the integrity of these resources. Other important buildings, including Nicollet Park, the Minneapolis Auditorium, and the Minneapolis Arena, have already been demolished.

8.35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Kristin M. and Christopher W. Kimball. “Designing the National Pastime: Twin Cities Baseball Parks.” Minnesota History 58, no. 7 (Fall 2003): 338 – 352.

Blade, Timothy Trent. “Grabbing a Bite: ‘Fast Food’ in Hennepin County.” Hennepin History 50, no.2 (Spring 1991): 4 – 12.

Cameron, Linda A. “Metropolitan Stadium, Bloomington.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified June 13, 2018. https://www.mnopedia.org/structure/metropolitan- stadium-bloomington.

Christensen, Dave. Tales from the Minnesota Gophers: A Collection of the Greatest Gopher Stories Ever Told. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing, 2014. Close, Elizabeth and Winston. “Bossen Field Shelter Building.” September 1959.

Dill, Emma. “Walker Art Center.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified May 15, 2018. https://www.mnopedia.org/place/walker-art-center.

Enke, Anne. “Pioneers, Players, and Politicos: Women’s Softball in Minnesota.” Minnesota History 58, no. 4 (Winter 2002 – 2003): 210 – 223.

Gebhard, David and Tom Martinson. A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.

Gehl, Robin. “Minnesota Opera.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified July 8, 2019. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/minnesota-opera.

Guilfoyle, Peg. The Guthrie Theater: Images, History, and Inside Stories. Minneapolis, MN: Nodin Press, 2006.

Hendrickson, Kenneth E., Jr. “The WPA Federal Art Projects in Minnesota, 1935 – 1943.” Minnesota History 53, no. 5 (Spring 1993): 170 – 183.

Hess, Jeffery. Their Splendid Legacy: The First 100 Years of the Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts. Minneapolis, MN: The Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts, 1985.

Hoffbeck, Steven R. “Hayloft Hoopsters: Legendary Lynd and the State High School Basketball Tournament.” Minnesota History 55, no. 8 (Winter 1997 – 1998): 334 – 349.

---. “The Barrels: Root Beer Stands of the Upper Midwest.” Minnesota History 53, no. 7 (Fall 1993): 254 – 265.

Hotel Vendrome. How to Enjoy Minneapolis City of Lakes: A Special Edition for Men and Women in the Armed Forces. c. 1941. Minnesota Historical Society. James K. Hosmer Special Collections Library. “Children’s Theater Collection Finding Aid.” October 25, 2016. https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and- Services/Finding-aids/C-E/2012-16-Childrens-Theater-2.pdf.

8.36

---. “Minneapolis Auditorium Collection Finding Aid.” May 24, 2016. https://www.hclib.org/- /media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and-Services/Finding-aids/M/2000-06-Minneapolis- Auditorium.pdf.

---. “Minneapolis Institute of Art Collection Finding Aid.” October 25, 2016. https://www.hclib.org/-/media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and-Services/Finding- aids/M/2013-01-Minneapolis-Institute-of-Art-2.pdf.

---. “Minnesota Opera Collection Finding Aid.” October 25, 2016, https://www.hclib.org/- /media/Hennepin-Library/Programs-and-Services/Finding-aids/M/2008-01-Minnesota- Opera-2.pdf.

Jones, Thomas H. Thomas B. Jones, “Caucasians Only: Solomon Hughes, the PGA, and the 1947 ST. Paul Open Golf Tournament.” Minnesota History 58, no. 8 (Winter 2003 – 2004): 382 – 393.

Kenney, Dave. Twin Cities Album: A Visual History. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

Liebs, Chester H. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Lindaman, Matthew. “Up! Up! Stadium: Planning and Building a War Memorial.” Minnesota History 62, no. 3 (Fall 2010): 107 – 116.

Marcott, Jacob. “Guthrie Theater.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified August 27, 2019. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/guthrie-theater.

McGuire, Nina and Barbara Budd. An Uncommon Guide to the Twin Cities. Minneapolis, MN: Viking Press, 1970.

Meet Me in Minneapolis. Minneapolis, MN: Convention and Visitors Bureau, Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, c. 1950. Available at the Minnesota Historical Society.

Meshbesher, Samuel. “Minneapolis Aquatennial.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified December 17, 2018. https://www.mnopedia.org/event/minneapolis-aquatennial#.

Millett, Larry. AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007.

Millett, Larry. Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. Minneapolis, City of Lakes. August 12, 1963. Minnesota Historical Society. Minneapolis Building Permit Index Card Collection. Hennepin County Library.

Minneapolis Star

Minneapolis Tribune

8.37

Minneapolis Star and Tribune

Minnesota Orchestra at One Hundred. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Orchestral Association, 2002. National Register of Historic Places. Hollywood Theater, Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination #13001145.

National Register of Historic Places. Peavey Plaza, Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination #12001173.

National Register of Historic Places. White Castle No. 8, Hennepin County, Minnesota. National Register Nomination #86002868.

Nyberg, Clifford W. Odin Lee’s Condensed Guide to Minneapolis. Minneapolis, MN: Odin Lee Publications, 1959.

O’Neill, Katherine. “The Band Box Hamburger Shops: Minneapolis’s First Homegrown Diner Chain.” Hennepin History 64 no. 1 (Winter 2005): 4 – 19.

Risjord, Norman K. A Popular History of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2005.

Roise, Charlene, Elizabeth Gales, Stephanie Atwood, and Linda Pate. Phase I/Phase II Architecture History Investigation for the Proposed Southwest Transitway Project, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Vol. 2. Authorized and sponsored by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and the Metropolitan Council, 2012.

Sandager, David. “Minnesota Vikings.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified January 26, 2018. https://www.mnopedia.org/group/minnesota-vikings.

Smith, David C. City of Parks: The Story of Minneapolis Parks. Minneapolis, MN: The Foundation for Minneapolis Park, 2008.

---. “Parade Stadium, Minneapolis.” MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. Last modified July 8, 2019. https://www.mnopedia.org/place/parade-stadium-minneapolis.

---. Parks, Lakes, Trails and So Much More: An Overview of the Histories of MPRB Properties. [Minneapolis, MN?]: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2008.

Stipanovich, Joseph. City of Lakes: An Illustrated History of Minneapolis. Woodland Hills, CA: Windsor Publications, 1982.

Thornley, Stew. “The Millerettes.” In Before the Dome: Baseball in Minnesota When the Grass Was Real, edited by David Anderson. Minneapolis, MN: Nodin Press, 1993. Vertical file “Hotels: Minneapolis: General, 1964 – 1983.” James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Hennepin County Library.

Walker Art Center: A History. [Minneapolis, MN?]: Walker Art Center, 1985.

8.38

Wright, C. Ben. “Minneapolis Parks and Recreation: A History of the Park and Recreation Board since World War II.” Unpublished manuscript, c. 1981. Typescript. James K. Hosmer Special Collections, Minneapolis Central Library.

8.39

CHAPTER NINE

University of Minnesota’s West Bank, 1965. University Archives, University of Minnesota.

MINNEAPOLIS MODERNISM: ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTS

List of Figures

Figure 9.1: The Foshay Tower, August 13, 1929. 9.3 Figure 9.2: The Minneapolis Greyhound Bus Terminal, c. 1936. 9.6 Figure 9.3: The Minneapolis Armory, 1935. 9.8 Figure 9.4: V.M.S Kaufmann House, c. 2014 9.11 Figure 9.5: Lutheran Brotherhood Building, c. 1955 9.12 Figure 9.6: Rarig Center, University of Minnesota, 1975 9.14 Figure 9.7: Social Science Tower, Blegen Hall, Heller Hall, 1965 9.14 Figure 9.8: Williamson Hall and Plaza 9.16 Figure 9.9: Malcolm Willey House, c. 2019 9.17

ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTS OF MODERN ERA MINNEAPOLIS

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the United States had been dominated by Beaux-Arts Neo-Classicism, a style marked by its “grandiose treatment of classic architectural forms” and “formal and monumental [buildings] with abundant and opulent detail.”1 Beaux Arts, as well as other architectural styles utilized during the period before World War I, drew their inspiration from the past, reviving and reworking historic styles of architecture.2 This “traditional” mode of architectural design stood in sharp contrast to the “Modern” movement in architecture, which can be traced to Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Architectural historian Leland Roth notes that “European Modernism was an architecture driven by careful functional analysis and maximum structural efficiency, intended to provide inexpensive housing for everyone and to solve other social problems.”3 In the 1920s and 1930s, European modernists sought to rid architecture of historical influence and all unnecessary elements and ornamentation in a pursuit of “pure” and “functional” architecture. During the Modern Era in the United States, two distinct modes of “modern” architectural design coexisted – the more decorative “Moderne” style of the c. 1920s-1950s (often thought of as Art Deco) and the “Modern” design of the c. 1930s-1970s (often thought of as International Style) that developed out of the European Modernism of the 1920s and 1930s.4 MODERNE ARCHITECTURE

In the United States, the Moderne style walked a middle road between these “traditional” and “modern” attitudes, blending historical references with futurist imagery to create a unique style. 5 This hybrid synthesis was encouraged by the economic success of the United States during the 1920s, following the end of World War I. To celebrate the country’s pillars of democracy and capitalism, it was necessary to utilize an American style that was distinguished from both the historicist styles and the avant-garde movements of Europe. By drawing on an eclectic range of influences – from Frank Lloyd Wright to cubism to Mayan forms to American zoning laws – the Moderne architectural style could achieve a more inclusive and democratic essence than the Modern movement had in Europe.6 In contrast to subsequent Modern movements of the 1950s and 1960s, Moderne architecture was largely vernacular, achieving widespread popularity across the United

1 Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History, 4th ed. (New York, Thames & Hudson, 2007), 219; “Beaux-Arts Style 1885 – 1930,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/beaux-arts.html. 2 Alastair Duncan, “Introduction,” in Alastair Duncan, ed., The Encyclopedia of Art Deco (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1998), 6. 3 Leland M. Roth, American Architecture: A History (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001), 411. 4 To acknowledge the distinct nature of Art Deco architecture in America, it is helpful to refer to the style as Moderne, rather than Art Deco. The use of the word “Moderne” also provides clarity in terminology. Moderne architecture in America can be divided into two subtypes differentiated by chronological period: Art Deco (also known as Zigzag Moderne), popular during the 1920s and early 1930s, and Streamline Moderne (also known as Art Moderne), a direct descendant of Art Deco that became prevalent in the 1930s. For the remainder of this narrative, the terms Art Deco and Streamline Moderne will be used to refer to their respective sub-styles, while the term “Moderne” will be used to describe both. 5 Richard Striner, “Art Deco: Polemics and Synthesis,” Winterthur Portfolio 25, no. 1 (Spring, 1990), 21 – 26; Frampton, Modern Architecture, 220. 6 Frampton, “Modern Architecture,” 220; Duncan, “Introduction,” 6.

9.1

States.7 Also unlike European Modern movements of the 1920s, Moderne was not based in ethical imperatives so much as in fashion and taste, and in a desire to incorporate playfulness and expressiveness into architecture.8 Art Deco

The first phase of Moderne architecture in the United States coincided with what is often referred to as the “Roaring Twenties,” a decade of economic prosperity, rising consumerism, and pursuit of material wealth in the United States. The style is relevant to this context, as it continued to be employed in Minneapolis through the Modern Era. According to art historian Barbara Haskell, “the unbridled opulence of the twenties found expression in an art of decoration and adornment,” 9 namely, Art Deco. The Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide provides a succinct summary of the key elements of American Art Deco architecture: Art Deco buildings have a sleek, linear appearance with stylized, often geometric ornamentation. The primary façades of Art Deco buildings often feature a series of set-backs that create a stepped outline. Low-relief decorative panels can be found at entrances, around windows, along roof edges or as string courses. Art Deco buildings feature distinctive smooth finish building materials such as stucco, concrete block, glazed brick or mosaic tile. Decorative details can incorporate various artistic or exotic motifs to suit the building's function or the architect's whim. Chevrons, zigzags, and other geometrical motifs are common forms of ornament on Art Deco style buildings.10 Ornamentation is a particularly defining feature of Art Deco buildings. In addition to geometrical motifs, this ornamentation often incorporated stylized motifs of plants and animals.11 The style tends towards a strong emphasis on verticality, often incorporating piers or pilasters, or a central tower.12 Exterior walls are clad in thin sheathing materials and express a 2-D, rather than 3- D, appearance.13 Art Deco buildings often contain strips of windows with decorative spandrels, as well as reeding and fluting surrounding doors and windows.14 Elevations are marked by symmetry

7 Leland M. Roth, American Architecture, 374 - 375, 430; Charlotte Benton & Tim Benton, “The Style and the Age,” in Charlotte Benton, Tim Benton and Ghislaine Wood, eds., Art Deco, 1910 – 1939, 2nd ed. (London: V & A Publishing, 2015), 14; David Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1996), 1 – 2. 8 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 4; Striner, “Art Deco,” 21 – 29. 9 Barbara Haskell, ed., The American Century: Art & Culture 1900 – 1950 (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art in association with W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), 131 – 136. 10 “Art Deco, 1925 – 1940,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/art-deco.html. 11 Duncan, “Architecture,” 11; David Gebhard and Tom Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 419; Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco in America, 4. 12 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 5; Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 419. 13 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 5. 14 “Art Deco, 1925 – 1940,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/art-deco.html; Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 419.

9.2 and balance, and roofs are flat, typically with parapets.15 In addition, the use of electric lighting, including the illumination of building exteriors, was a conscious design decision for architects of the period.16

Figure 9.1 The Foshay Tower, August 13, 1929. Norton and Peel, photographers, “Foshay Tower, August 13, 1929, Minneapolis,” 1929. Minnesota Historical Society Collections.

15 Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 419. 16 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco in America, 6.

9.3

Art Deco architecture was largely confined to the urban realm. It was most commonly employed for large commercial buildings and public buildings such as the U.S. Post Office (architect Leon Arnal of firm Magney and Tusler, 100 First Street South, 1934). Perhaps the most notable commercial typology is the Art Deco skyscraper, which came to symbolize the power, progress, and prosperity achieved via capitalism.17 Art Deco skyscrapers were particularly popular in the Midwest, where they became a ubiquitous feature of many urban centers, including the Twin Cities.18 In Minneapolis, the Foshay Tower (Magney and Tusler, 821 Marquette Avenue, 1929) claimed the honor of being tallest building in the downtown skyline for over 40 years following its construction. The Rand Tower (Holabird and Root, 527 Marquette Avenue, 1929), constructed in the same year saw notable Chicago architects Holabird and Root bringing the Art Deco style to Minneapolis. The Northwestern Bell Telephone Building (Hewitt and Brown, 224 Fifth Street South, 1932) followed in 1932. In Minnesota broadly, and Minneapolis specifically, the movie theater was also a common vehicle for Art Deco design.19 The architectural firm of Liebenberg and Kaplan was particularly well known for their theater designs in both Art Deco and Streamline Moderne styles, with extant examples dotting the city including the Hollywood Theater (2815 Johnson Street Northeast, 1935), and the Uptown Theatre (2906 Hennepin Avenue, 1939). Streamline Moderne

In the 1930s, a new variation of Moderne architecture emerged in the United States. The key differentiators between this new substyle and its predecessor was its emphasis on “streamlined” design and reduced ornamentation.20 Streamline Moderne, as it came to be called, drew its inspiration from the designs of modern machines, especially the aerodynamic, “streamlined” airplane.21 Art historian Barbara Haskell notes that “streamlining became a metaphor for a modern, optimistic, and mobile America, reshaping the image, the forms, and even the typologies of architecture. For a brief period, sheet metal and glass – the materials of cars, trains, steamships, and planes – became the symbols of a new architecture, and the machine-made component its basic unit.”22 When applied to buildings, this machine aesthetic manifested itself in smooth surfaces, 23 curved corners, and a horizontal emphasis. The Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide notes that:

17 Larry Millet, Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 1; Haskell, The American Century, 138; William J. R. Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900, 3rd ed. (New York, Phaidon Press, 1996), 224. 18 Carla Breeze, American Art Deco (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2003), 105 - 108, 111; Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 15. 19 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 136. 20 “Art Moderne, 1930 – 1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/moderne.html. 21 “Art Moderne, 1930 – 1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/moderne.html; Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 419. 22 Haskell, The American Century, 302. 23 Virginia McAlester and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 465 – 466.

9.4

the Moderne style featured smooth walls with little surface ornamentation, rounded corners and curved glass. Moderne buildings have flat roofs, and bands of windows with a horizontal emphasis. Some buildings of this style have simple pipe balustrades, panels of glass block windows, curved canopies, or aluminum or stainless steel detailing.24 Additional features include round windows, horizontal layers on building façades, metal window and door frames, and asymmetrical volumes and elevations.25 The smooth surfaces of Streamline Moderne buildings, purposefully designed to hide the building’s structure and mechanical systems, were intended to evoke a sense of machine production, or to give the impression that the building itself was a machine.26 Images from the science fiction of the 1920s and 30s, from the transportation-influenced drawings of avant-garde architects in the early 1900s, and from artists of the 1930s who favored curves and organic forms also informed Streamline Moderne.27 For Americans living in the Great Depression, Streamline Moderne offered hope in a period of distress, stirring up novel images of the future and expressing the country’s desire for progress.28 According to historian Richard Striner, the style’s “themes of cohesion, unity, and smooth coordination were inspiring in a culture seeking to transform disaster and trauma into an opportunity for twentieth-century pioneering and community rededication.”29 The style evoked an up-to-date, modern image, an association leveraged by national chains of stores to attract sales.30 More than Art Deco, the Streamline style reflected an increased influence of the International style, with its smooth plastered walls and strips of ribbon windows; however, the Streamline style was driven by pragmatic concerns, rather than the ideals of Modern architecture, and was often criticized by Modern architects as superficial “styling.”31 In contrast to Art Deco’s preference for large commercial and public structures, the Streamline Moderne style was applied to smaller buildings, including new houses, commercial establishments, restaurants, and bus stations. The style was also used to remodel existing buildings, since the Depression restricted new commercial construction. Another key difference between Art Deco and Streamline Moderne, according to architectural historian David Gebhard, was related to the temporal impressions created by each style – “the typical Art Deco building argued for

24 “Art Moderne, 1930 – 1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/moderne.html. 25 Gebhard and Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 419; Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 10 – 11. 26 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 10. 27 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 13 – 14. 28 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 9; Haskell, The American Century, 303. 29 Striner, “Art Deco,” 30. 30 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 12. 31 Gebhard & Martinson, Architecture of Minnesota, 419; Roth, American Architecture, 374 - 375; Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 12; Striner, “Art Deco,” 30 – 32; “International Style 1930 – 1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/international.html.

9.5

permanence in its forms and materials, while the Streamline Moderne structure, with its “flash-and- gleam beauty,” implied a built-in impermanence…”32 Both the Art Deco and Streamline Moderne phases of Moderne architecture were marked by the use of new materials or new technologies for embellishment.33 These included structural systems composed of reinforced concrete with a steel frame; terrazzo floors; fine stone veneer and metal panel wall claddings; bronze and aluminum hardware, entrance portals and lighting fixtures; glass block walls, windows and decorative panels; neon lighting; and Virtolite (a colored glass tile).

Figure 9.2 The Minneapolis Greyhound Bus Terminal, c. 1936. Charles W. Howson Company, photographers, “Greyhound Bus Depot,” c. 1935. Minnesota Historical Society Collections.

32 Millet, Minnesota Modern, 2; Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 9 – 12. 33 Breeze, American Art Deco, 16 – 17.

9.6

PWA Moderne From the 1920s through the 1930s, Moderne architecture was shaped by the economic, political, and social environment of the United States. This fact is clearly demonstrated during the years of the Great Depression, when the federal government’s response to economic depression played a key role in the development of another sub-style of Moderne architecture. American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected in 1933, inaugurated a federal program to revive the American economy and enact reforms in industry, agriculture, finance, waterpower, labor, and housing. Known as the “New Deal,” this program of aid greatly expanded the federal government’s services and role in the economy.34 Among the federal agencies created as part of this program were the Public Works Administration (PWA) and Works Progress Administration (WPA). During the 1930s, many public buildings were financed by the PWA and/or constructed with labor provided by the WPA. Some of these buildings were designed by federal employees, while others were the creations of private architects. Collectively referred to as PWA Moderne, the style of these buildings has come to embody a distinct subset of the Moderne style.35 A key characteristic of PWA Moderne buildings was their Classical-inspired design elements. The federal government’s preference for Classical architecture was informed by a belief that classical architecture communicated the ethics of democracy. At the same time, the interchangeable work areas facilitated by Modern architects were particularly useful for government organizations occupying public buildings. According to Lois Craig, director of the Federal Architecture Project in the 1970s, buildings that blended these two ideas appeared in the early 1930s: Undifferentiated work spaces – though not the interpenetrating, asymmetrical volumes characteristic of the modern movement – appeared early in ground plans for the new public building program. Slightly later, but more gradually, the facades became simplified, their classical ornaments turning angular and disappearing into the masonry, their walls becoming more planar and their window openings shallow and anonymous. What resulted was a gaunt, underfed, “starved” classicism, denoted as much by white masonry and the rhythm of wall and window as by vestigial columns.36

34 Encyclopedia Britannica Online, s.v. “New Deal,” lasted updated October 9, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/event/New- Deal. 35 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 7 – 8; C. W. Short & R. Stanley Brown, Public Buildings: Architecture Under the Public Works Administration 1933 – 39, vol. I, Projects Constructed by Federal and Other Governmental Bodies between the Years 1933 and 1939 with the Assistance of the Public Works Administration (1939, repr., New York: Da Capo Press, 1986), 1 – 2; Lois Craig, The Federal Presence: Architecture Politics, and Symbols in United States Government Building (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984), 353. 36 Craig, The Federal Presence, 282.

9.7

Figure 9.3 The Minneapolis Armory, 1935. Norton & Peel, photographers, “Armory Exterior, 500-530 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis,” 1935. Minnesota Historical Society Collections.

PWA Moderne thus carried out the spirit of the Moderne movement by bridging traditional and newer architectural styles, combining classical organization with Art Deco decoration and geometry to create monumental structures that evoked a feeling of both the contemporary and the historic.37 In the words of another architectural historian, Charles Nelson, “for the most part, [PWA Moderne] buildings combine the decorative qualities of the Art Deco style with a restrained formalism reminiscent of the Classical.”38 David Gebhard and Tom Martinson provide a succinct list of PWA Moderne characteristics: - Symmetrical form and classical horizontal proportions - Piers (used instead of columns) occasionally fluted but generally with no capitals or bases - Windows arranged as recessed vertical panels - Surfaces usually smooth and flat with terra-cotta ornamentation

37 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 7 – 8; Anne Blecksmith, “Art Deco architecture” in Joan M. Marter, ed., The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 147. 38 Charles Nelson, “Tech Talk – Minnesota’s Architecture – Part V: Styles of the Modern Era: Prairie School, Bungalow, Art Deco, International & Revivals,” Minnesota History Interpreter (January, 2000), 5.

9.8

- Smooth stone sheathing; polished marble, granite, and terrazzo within and without - Relief sculpture and interior murals39 To ensure that the didactic qualities of the now-diluted Classical architecture were not lost on the public, these buildings often included inscriptions and art that communicated the government’s ideas of public virtue.40 Artist Joseph Meresca emphasizes the impression of stability and strength that these buildings convey, and notes that the PWA Moderne style provided “a visual remedy for the public’s need for a sense of security” during the Great Depression, while the use of the contemporary Moderne style signified the hopeful, new nature of the “New Deal.”41 Depression-era architecture influenced by the federal government evoked a sense of the elevation of community effort over the individual, nostalgia for early American history, and austerity.42 Lois Craig notes that regardless of architectural style, “the symbolism in all the New Deal buildings…lay in the very fact of their existence, their evidence commitment to the shift of government from neutral arbiter to social welfare activist.”43 In Minnesota, PWA Moderne structures often took the form of new post offices, schools, and armories that utilized native materials and were ornamented with relief sculptures and murals sponsored by the Federal Arts Project. Notable Minneapolis buildings that display elements of the PWA Moderne style include the Minneapolis Armory (P.C. Bettenburg, architect and Walter H. Wheeler, engineer, 500-530 Sixth Street South, 1936), the University of Minnesota Bell Museum of Natural History (Clarence H. Johnston Jr., 10 Church Street Southeast, 1940), the University of Minnesota Coffman Memorial Union (Clarence H. Johnston Jr., 300 Washington Avenue Southeast, 1940 with later remodel) and the Farmers and Mechanics Bank (McEnary and Krafft, 520 Marquette Avenue, 1941, additions 1955 and 1961).44

39 Gebhard & Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 420. 40 Craig, The Federal Presence, 286. 41 Joseph Maresca, WPA Buildings: Architecture and Art of the New Deal (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 2016), 12, 17. 42 Phoebe Cutler, The Public Landscape of the New Deal (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 145 - 147. 43 Craig, The Federal Presence, 343. 44 Gebhard, The National Trust Guide to Art Deco, 129; Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, 59; “Minnesota State Fair: History,” https://assets.mnstatefair.org/pdf/media/MSF-History.pdf.

9.9

MODERN ARCHITECTURE

The architectural language that would eventually be generally called the “International Style” emerged in Europe in the 1920s from the ground breaking design work of architects such as Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe in Germany and Le Corbusier in France. Modern architecture as it existed in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s was conceived as “an architecture driven by careful functional analysis and maximum structural efficiency, intended to…solve social problems.”45 The perceived social problems that these architects were seeking to solve included 1) a general frustration with the use of historicist architectural styles and their lack of relation to a building’s function; 2) the need for economical construction of additional residential, office, and commercial buildings for a society that was rapidly industrializing and had been physically decimated by WWI; and 3) the improved accessibility of relatively new building technologies including iron, steel, glass, and reinforced concrete. Physical characteristics of the movement included an emphasis on geometric shapes and volumes, lack of ornamentation, flat roofs, ribbon windows, cantilevered construction, and use of new construction techniques and materials such as curtain walls.

While Modern architecture would not gain traction in the United States until after World War II, it was broadly introduced to American audiences during the 1930s by a 1932 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art and by European architects who immigrated to the United States in the years leading up to World War II. American architects begin experimenting in the style during this decade “building upon the early 20th century American trends like the Commercial, Bungalow and Prairie styles, and the development of skyscrapers.”46 International Style

The “International Style” is a term coined as part of the 1932 Museum of Modern Art exhibition —“Modern Architecture: International Exhibition”—and the accompanying book, The International Style: Architecture in 1922. With the exhibition and book, exhibit curators Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock set out to define the formal architectural language of Modernism, the materials it used, and construction methods of the style while ignoring the philosophical and ideological underpinnings associated with its origin. Similarly, while architects and schools of thought from across Europe and the United States had developed regional and personal differences in their design aesthetics, the curators sought to describe a single “style” with little variation.47 The wide dissemination of the exhibit’s content was key factor in the development of a popular understanding of Modern architecture as a purely formal endeavor – an “International Style” that did not vary by location.

In general, the International Style was understood as a representation of the possibilities of architectural design in a machine age. As described by historical architect Charles Nelson, “[The International Style] was controlled by a strict recipe of design that dictated a lightweight frame and

45 Leland M. Roth, American Architecture: A History, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001), 411. 46 “International Style 1930-1950,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, last updated August 26, 2015, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/international.html 47 Margaret Kentgens-Craig, “The Search for Modernity: America, International Style, Bauhaus,” in American Architectural History A Contemporary Reader, Keith L. Eggener, ed., (New York: Routledge, 2004), 305-307.

9.10

curtain-wall construction, open planning, standardized industrial materials, cubist forms, a linear geometry of openings, asymmetrical composition, flat roofs, smooth continuous wall surfaces, and the rejection of all applied ornament.” 48 Notable design features also include: - horizontal massing - rectangular volumes - strip or ribbon windows - regularity of openings - large expanses of glass - exterior sheathing of metal or plywood panels or stucco

International style interiors are marked by large volumes of open floor space. The International Style was a popular style to use for office buildings (see Corporate Modernism below), government buildings, and schools. The style was less popular in domestic architecture, with its use generally limited to architect-designed homes for wealthy patrons and the cultural elite, however, its influence can be seen in the rise in popularity of open floor plans and introduction of larger windows in ranch style tract homes in newly developed sub-divisions and suburbs throughout the country and city. (For a more detailed discussion of Residential Architecture in the Modern Era, see Chapter 5). Contrarily, the single-family V.M.S. Kaufmann House (20 Park Lane, Wessel, Brunet & Klein, 1935) is one of the most stereotypical examples of the International Style to be found in Minneapolis.

Figure 9.4 V.M.S. Kaufmann House c. 2014. Courtesy www.placeography.org, the University of Minnesota.

48 Charles Nelson, “Tech Talk – Minnesota’s Architecture – Part V, 6.

9.11

Corporate Modernism

According to architectural historian Leland Roth, after World War II, “American corporations, flush with profits earned during the war…wished to demonstrate their faith in the future and progress. The ideals of the International Style…were perfect for expressing this confidence in American know-how...”49 Roth further argues that “Commercial architecture became an increasingly important form of public relations” and that the International Style, specifically, was “co-opted by corporate America as a form of advertisement and aggrandizement.”50 This specifically corporate iteration of Modern architecture has become known as Corporate Modernism.

Corporate Modern office buildings in the United States played an important role in postwar corporate identity construction. According to architectural historian Dell Upton, “for…a business corporation, a striking building created an impression of power and stability and gave it a memorable image or logo…” and “expanses of glass now spoke of modernity and cultural authority.”51 At the interior Modern architecture in general and Corporate Modern architecture specifically is marked by large volumes of open floor space, which made adoption of Modern design elements ideal for American post-war corporate office buildings, since the country’s white collar workforce more than doubled in the post war period.52 Though it has since been demolished, the Lutheran Brotherhood Building (Perkins & Will - Chicago Office, 701 Second Avenue South, 1955, razed 1997) fit the corporate modern mold perfectly – providing a modern face for the fraternal benefit society which was first founded in the 1910s.

Figure 9.5 Lutheran Brotherhood Building, nearing the end of construction in 1955.

Minneapolis Star Tribune, photographer, “Lutheran Brotherhood Building, 701 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis,” 1955. Minnesota Historical Society Collections.

49 Leland M. Roth, American Architecture: A History (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001), 411-412. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Dell Upton, Architecture in the United States, 222.

9.12

Brutalism

Brutalism or New Brutalism is a term that gained common usage following publication of a 53 1955 essay in The Architectural Review by architectural critic Reyner Banham. The term was first used to describe an approach to design pioneered by British architects Peter and Alison Smithson in the 1950s and 1960s. The style, characterized by simple, block-like forms and exposed structural elements of raw concrete, was conceived as a “more honest” architecture in response to a perceived shortcoming of the International Style and its use of “superficial” elements such as glass or metal cladding. The style can be identified through the following visual characteristics:

- Exposed and articulated structural elements – most often concrete, acting as structure, cladding, and primary organizational element. However, in Minneapolis, and Minnesota broadly, buildings that are otherwise characteristically Brutalist in style are often sheathed in brick. - Overall horizontal massing appearing “monumental and permanent with the traditional separateness of interior and exterior space cultivated”54 - Windows as punched openings - Repeated modular elements, where differences in the elements represent differences in the building’s function

The style is commonly used in institutional buildings including libraries, educational buildings, and public housing. In Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota’s West Bank includes examples of both exposed concrete (Rarig Center, 330 21st Avenue South, Ralph Rapson and Associates, 1971) and sheathed brick (Walter W. Heller Hall, Cerny Associates, 1961; Social Sciences Building, Cerny Associates, 1962; Blegen Hall, Setter, Leach & Lindstrom, 1962) Brutalist buildings, along with landscape elements and site furniture that adhere to the Brutalist aesthetic. The Luxton Park Recreation Center (112 Williams Avenue Southeast, 1970), winner of a 1971 AIA MN Honor Award, is another example of the style.55

53 Reyner Banham, “The New Brutalism” The Architectural Review December 1955 Full text available online: https://www.architectural-review.com/the-new-brutalism-by-reyner-banham/8603840.article 54 Gebhard, 426. 55 “Minnesota Modern Registry,” docomomo-us-mn.org, accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern- registry.html.

9.13

Figure 9.6 Rarig Center on the University of Minnesota’s West Bank campus. Steve Plattner, photographer, “Rarig Theater and Telecommnications Center,” 1975. Minnesota Historical Society Collections.

Figure 9.7 Social Science Tower, Blegen Hall, and Heller Hall on the University of Minnesota’s West Bank Campus. Northern Minnesota Novelties, Inc., photographer, “Social Science Tower, Business Administration Tower, Blegen Hall, University of Minnesota,” postcard, c. 1965. Minnesota Historical Society Collections.

9.14

Residential Architectural Design

See Residential Development, Chapter 5. Environmental Modernism of the 1970s

By the end of the Modern Era, architects were beginning to embrace new modes of design, and environmental design became a popular architectural response to the energy crisis of the 1970s. Leland Roth explains that at this time “among some architects a new design vocabulary emerged,” which was focused on environmental factors such as energy conservation through massing, heating systems, and building material choices among other factors.56 Building forms were developed in response to site and the elements and adopted “organic” forms. Additionally, “serious research was directed at the way in which aboriginal native [sic] American buildings had deflected or conserved heat.”57 As the 1970s progressed, “the relationship between the environmental movement and architecture grew as public awareness of ecological concerns and the emergence of new green technologies increased.”58 Even Corporate Modern-style office towers adopted a veneer of environmentalism, as reflective glass became a popular material. Characteristics of this design movement include59:

- Use of passive solar heating systems developed around window placement, vents, and building orientation; or innovative “active” heating systems that incorporated louvers, heat storage masses, and/or motorized controls among other elements - Use of massive “earth-based” materials such as rammed earth, concrete block and concrete - Underground buildings - “Organic” forms – irregular shapes, curves, triangles, asymmetrical massing and/or façades - Integration of landscape design, green roofs, plantings on walls

While much of the experimentation with environmental design took place in parts of the county with more forgiving climates than that of Minneapolis, local examples do exist. Dating to just after the time period addressed by this context study, the underground Williamson Hall (Myers and Bennett, Architects/BRW, 1977) on the University of Minnesota’s East Bank exemplifies many of the goals of environmental modernism. The building was conceived with a goal of “energy conservation in the harsh climate of the Twin Cities,” claiming to not require active heating in its two-story bookstore space until the temperature outside reached -20 degrees Fahrenheit.60

56 Roth, American Architecture, 476. 57Ibid. 58 Haddad, A Critical History, 5.1. 59 Roth, American Architecture, 476; Phillip James Tabb and A. Senem Deviren, The Greening of Architecture, Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2013, 49-70. 60 Sharon, J. Marcovich, “Buried Bookstore Saves Energy, Saves Space, Saves the View,” Popular Science, Volumer 211, No. 3, September 1977, 96-97.

9.15

Environmental architecture was less popular in residential architecture, due to rising construction costs associated with masonry materials and a-typical design.61 A rare residential example in the form of a Geodesic dome stands at (3124 44th Ave South, c. 1970s).

Figure 9.8 Williamson Hall and Plaza on the University of Minnesota’s East Bank Campus. Courtesy Hennepin County Library Digital Collections, James Taulman Collection.

THE CONTINUED INFLUENCE OF FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT

In addition to the European-originated Moderne and Modern architectural modes, architecture of the Modern Era continued to be influenced by the singular aesthetic of Frank Lloyd Wright. By the 1930s, Wright was a vocal critic of the International Style, voicing concerns “not only about its narrowness, but also about the dangers of establishing one approach to design as correct.”62

Throughout the Modern Era, Wright continued to utilize the tactile and human scale materials such as brick and wood paneling that characterized Prairie School architecture while also experimenting with organic forms such as curves, hexagons and circles.63 Wright’s “Usonian” homes of the 1930s and 1940s were designed with flat roofs, simple massing, and horizontal lines and made an early attempt at the open kitchen/dining/living floor plan that would become ubiquitous in ranch houses of the 1950s and later. Additionally, Wright’s buildings interacted with their sites in a

61 Tabb, The Greening of Architecture, 66-68. 62 Handlin, American Architecture, 225. 63 Roth, American Architecture, 391.

9.16

different way than other modes of modern architecture. While many modern buildings were designed to stand out from and rise above their surroundings, Wright’s designs were intended to complement and integrate with their sites. These design themes can be seen at the Malcom Willey House (225 Bedford Street S.E., 1934), considered a precursor to the Usonian houses. Another of Wright’s designs, the Henry and Frieda Neils House at 2801 Burnham Boulevard, was constructed along Cedar Lake in 1951.64

Figure 9.9 Contemporary image of the Malcolm Willey House. Courtesy www.thewilleyhouse.comf

Many architects who were not specifically working in the “Wrightian” style exhibited a growing interest in the use of local materials, their ability to give a building a sense of place, and to move away from the stark machine-age nature of the International Style. In Minneapolis, designs that followed this mode can be seen in the use of granite cladding at the State of Minnesota Department of Employment Security (309 2nd Avenue South, 1959) and in the distinctive brick- faced Brutalism of the University of Minnesota’s West Bank.

64 “Minnesota Modern Registry,” docomomo-us-mn.org, accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern- registry.html; Larry Millet, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2007), 283 – 284.

9.17

ARCHITECTS65

This draws heavily on Minnesota Architects by Alan Lathrop and the Northwest Architectural Archives’ Architect Biographies. It is not exhaustive. Additional architects, landscape architects, contractors, and developers are likely to have made significant contributions to the city of Minneapolis during the Modern Era.

Baker Associates (Baker-Lange Associates, Inc.): Edward Baker (1926 - 2006) received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota in 1950. Baker went on to work in the notable local firm of Larson and McLaren before founding his own practice, Baker Associates, in 1959. The firm was known for the design of the first skyways in Minneapolis, as well as multiple prominent buildings throughout the Twin Cities.

Baker entered a partnership with Austin H. Lange from 1964 through 1973. Little is known about Lange. Following the dissolution of Baker-Lange Associates, Edward Baker continued in private practice and also became a successful real estate developer.66

Cerny Associates (see also Thorshov and Cerny) The firm of Cerny Associates had its roots in the partnership of Robert Cerny and Roy Norman Thorshov, established in 1942. Robert Thorshov (1905 – 1992), the son of well-known Minneapolis architect Olaf Thorshov, was born in Minneapolis and graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in architecture in 1928. Thorshov joined his father’s partnership of Long & Thorshov shortly before the elder Thorshov’s death in 1928, and subsequently became a full partner. In 1942, Robert Cerny (1908 – 1985) joined the firm, which became Thorshov and Cerny in 1951. Cerny was a Wisconsin native but graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1932. During the 1930s, he obtained a master’s degree in architecture from Harvard University (1933), worked with the Tennessee Valley Authority, and traveled to Europe under a Nelson-Robinson Traveling Fellowship. In 1937, he formed the partnership of Jones and Cerny and also obtained a position teaching “modern” architecture at the University of Minnesota, where he would continue to teach until 1976. After joining Long & Thorshov in 1942, Cerny collaborated with Thorshov to design over 100 buildings, including religious, educational, residential, commercial and office structures, as well as the Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, MN and an airport terminal at what is now the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The partnership was known for its modernist designs and was one of the largest architectural firms in Minneapolis during the 1950s.

After Thorshov and Cerny dissolved their partnership in 1960, Cerny established his own firm, Cerny & Associates, which he operated until the firm dissolved in 1978. According to architectural

65 Alan Lathrop, Minnesota Architects: A Biographical Dictionary, (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010).; University of Minnesota Northwest Architectural Archives, individual architect/firm biographies available as finding aid notes associated with individual collections, https://archives.lib.umn.edu 66 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 9-10, 136; “Edward Frank Baker,” Star Tribune, June 16, 2006; “History,” Baker Associates, Inc. – Architects, https://bakerarchitectsmpls.com/history/.

9.18 historian Alan Lathrop, the firm was “one of the most successful in Minnesota.” A 1975 newspaper article noted that Cerny was the “architect of many Minneapolis landmarks” and “a spate of residential, commercial and public structures throughout the Midwest.” In contrast to his former partner Thorshov, Cerny was an ardent supporter of urban renewal. He served as chairman of the Urban Renewal Committee of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and was a strong advocate for Minneapolis’ Gateway Center Urban Renewal Project in the 1950s. One 1985 newspaper article noted that Cerny “often criticized development in Minneapolis” and condemned “its lack of high- rise downtown apartment buildings.” By the early 1970s, many notable architects in the Upper Midwest had worked for Cerny or studied under him at the University of Minnesota.67

Close Associates: Elizabeth Close (1912 – 2011), was born Elizabeth Scheu in Vienna, Austria, and began her college education at the Technische Hochschule in Vienna. The school’s prejudice against women and increasing Nazi influence in Austria caused Elizabeth to leave for the United States in 1935. After completing graduate work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Scheu worked for Modernist architect and writer Oskar Stonorov in Philadelphia designing a public housing project. Another public housing project, Sumner Field, brought Elizabeth to Minneapolis; here, she worked for the firm of Magney & Tusler, where her MIT classmate Winston Close was also employed as the chief draftsman. In 1938, Scheu and Close married and opened the firm of Close Associates, at which they both practiced through the end of their careers.

Winston Close (1906 – 1997) was born in Appleton, Minnesota and received a degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1927. He worked for several Twin Cities architectural firms after graduation, including Toltz, King & Day; Long & Thorshov; Ellerbe & Company; Erickson & Company; and Magney & Tusler. Close received a masters degree in architecture from MIT in 1935, and served in the U.S. navy from 1943 to 1946. Other accomplishments included serving as advisory architect to the University of Minnesota from 1950 – 1971, during which time he helped to design master plans for the University’s West Bank Minneapolis campus and Duluth campus.

After the establishment of Close Associates in 1938, Elizabeth and Winston Close specialized in the design of single-family residences. The couple designed over 150 houses, including 14 for University of Minnesota faculty and administrators in the University Grove neighborhood near the University’s St. Paul campus. Twin Cities architectural historian Larry Millet notes that “the couple’s houses are noted for their careful siting, open plans, many built-ins, use of modern materials (sometimes in

67 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 35, 210 – 211; Laurel Fritz, Evaluation of Historic Significance: Public Service Center (prepared for the City of Minneapolis, June 2015), 6 – 7; “Architects Pick Roy Thorshov,” Minneapolis Star, September 23, 1963; David Chanen, “Roy Thorshov, Architect of Twin Cities, Is Dead at 87,” Star Tribune, March 17, 1992; “Cerny Blames Tardy Billpayers for Architecture Firm’s Woes,” Minneapolis Star, December 11, 1975; “Robert Cerny Dies, Designed Met Stadium,” Minneapolis Star and Tribune, February 1, 1985; Jim Fuller, “Downtown’s Stadium Only Part of Architect’s Dream for City,” Minneapolis Tribune, January 23, 1972.

9.19 unconventional ways), and abundance of natural light.”68 In 1969, the Closes were the first married couple to be elected fellows of the American Institute of Architects.69

Graffunder-Nagle and Associates (Carl Graffunder & Associates / Graffunder, Berreau & Associates): Carl O. Graffunder (1919 – 2013) was born in Rock Island, Illinois but was raised in Hibbing, Minnesota. He graduated from the University of Minnesota with a bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1942 and served as a naval architect during World War II. Following the war, he worked as chief draftsman for Modernist Antonin Raymond (1946 – 1947). After earning his master’s degree in architecture from Harvard University in 1948, Graffunder returned to Minneapolis to begin his own practice. He also returned to the University of Minnesota as a professor for the School of Architecture, teaching there from 1950 until 1986. Graffunder was known for his modern domestic architecture, which included more than one hundred houses in Minnesota. Graffunder also designed libraries, churches, civic structures, educational buildings, and commercial buildings. Notable works include the Stevens Square Nursing Home in Minneapolis (c. 1960) and Clayton A. Gay Hall and the Science building at the University of Minnesota-Morris (1965 – 1966 and 1966, respectively). Graffunder’s buildings, most of which were designed in the Mid-Century Modern Contemporary style, were honored with a variety of awards, and Graffunder himself received the AIA Fellowship Award for his contributions to the field of architecture and society. In 1955, Graffunder traveled to Korea under the sponsorship of the United Nations as part of a team of professors and scientists to advise Seoul University’s school of architecture and to study Korea’s housing situation. From 1956 until 1962, Graffunder partnered with Norman Nagle under the name Graffunder-Nagel and Associates; subsequently, Graffunder practiced as Carl Graffunder & Associates and then as Graffunder, Berreau & Associates in 1967. According to architectural historian Greg Mathis,

Graffunder developed the ability to seamlessly blend what on the surface would appear to be contrasting aspects of Modernism and nature into pleasing and striking architectural compositions that were bold and highly modern, yet natural and rustic. His designs successfully wove together Modernist materials such as exposed steel beams and cables, and concrete, with large spans of glass and the hard, angular forms, of postwar Modernism with natural, earthy materials, such as natural wood, stone, and brick in a way that creates both visual contrast, yet striking harmony. As a result, his designs have a starkly Modern character, yet are warm and comfortable, providing a sense of tranquility. It is this skillfulness with which these juxtapositions are executed that sets his designs apart from the work of his contemporaries.

Norman Nagle (1918 – 1965) was born in Toledo, Ohio and received his bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Michigan Ann Arbor in 1940 and a master’s degree in

68 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 321. 69 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 44 – 45; “Oskar Stonorov’s Frantz Residence,” DOCOMOMO, accessed May 11, 2020, https://docomomo-us.org/event/oskar-stonorovs-frantz-residence.

9.20

Architecture and Urban Planning from the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1947. Nagle taught at Cranbrook and worked for Libby Owens Ford (1937), O’Dell, Hewlet & Luchkenbach (1946 – 1947), and Saarinen & Saarinen (1947 – 1949) before establishing his own practice in 1950. Like Graffunder, Nagle also taught at the University of Minnesota, teaching from 1948 until his death in 1965.70

Griswold and Rauma (David J. Griswold and Associates): David Griswold (1918 – 2006) was born in Minneapolis and received his bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1941. From 1942 until 1945, Griswold spent three years designing for the U.S. Navy and supervising drafting rooms at the U.S. Navy Postgraduate School, during which time he also gained a Certificate in Naval Architecture. After World War II, Griswold took a position at the Minneapolis firm of Magney, Tusler and Setter. In 1948, he accepted the position of chief draftsman at Long and Thorshov, followed by the position of chief engineer at the contracting firm Fred O. Watson Company in 1950. In 1952, Griswold founded David J. Griswold and Associates, briefly partnering with architect Loren Abbett in 1956. Griswold joined with John Rauma to form a new partnership in 1963. In 1985, he sold his interest in the firm (by then known as Griswold, Rauma, Egge & Olson Architects, Inc.) to his partners and formed an independent architectural consulting practice. Griswold served as the president of the Minneapolis chapter of the AIA. Notable buildings designed by Griswold include the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church School in Spring Lake Park, Minnesota (1958), the William H. Ziegler Company in Bloomington, Minnesota (1959), and the Pako Corporation in Golden Valley, Minnesota (1959).

John Gunnar Rauma (1926 – 2005) was born in Virginia, Minnesota, and attended Virginia Junior College briefly before joining the U.S. Navy around 1943. In 1946, Rauma obtained a bachelor’s degree in naval science from Marquette University in Milwaukee, followed by a bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1950 and a master’s degree in architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1952. Rauma worked for Minneapolis architects Magney, Tusler and Setter in 1948, then for Carl Graffunder beginning in 1950. From 1951 until 1952, he worked in Massachusetts for Pietro Belluschi as well as Anderson-Beckwith; from 1952 until 1954, he taught at the University of California, Berkley in the College of Architecture. After returning to

70 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 83; Bette Jones Hammel, Legendary Homes of Lake Minnetonka (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2009), 121; David Gehbard and Tom Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 20; “Carl O. Graffunder,” Star Tribune, September 8, 2013, http://www.startribune.com/obituaries/detail/13890471/; George S. Koly, ed., American Architects Directory, 2nd ed. (New York: R. R. Bowker Company, 1962), 259; George S. Koyl, ed., American Architects Directory, (New York: R. R. Bowker Company, 1955), 399; “Services Set Friday for Norman C. Nagle,” Minneapolis Star, January 19, 1965; Greg Mathis, Bottineau Transitway Phase I and II Architectural History Survey: Supplemental Report 1 (submitted to the Hennepin County Engineering and Transit Planning Housing, Community Works and Transit, Kimberly-Horn and Associates, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, June 2013), 16 – 20, https://metrocouncil.org/getattachment/29d3d41f-9c5b-465a-9c3c- 6a0006215a80/BLLRT_TechRept_Phase_I_and_II_Architectural_Histor.aspx; “Architect Accepts U.N. Job in Korea,” Minneapolis Star, September 9, 1955; Chao Xiong, “Obituary: Carl Graffunder, 94, Minnesota architect,” Star Tribune, September 12, 2013, http://www.startribune.com/obituary-carl-graffunder-94-minnesota-architect/223521931/.

9.21

Minneapolis in 1954, Rauma took a position with Thorshov and Cerny as chief of design and two years later began teaching at the University of Minnesota’s School of Architecture. When Cerny and Thorshov split in 1960, Rauma continued with Cerny Associates before partnering with Griswold in 1963.

According to the Northwest Architectural Archives’ finding aid for the John G. Rauma Papers, Griswold-Rauma “specialized in providing practical solutions to problems, including economic feasibility, functional arrangements, efficiency of use, and environmental situations…The firm performed a great variety of commissions, anywhere from institutional, educational, commercial, industrial [and] residential [to] religious and healthcare facilities.” When Griswold left to establish an independent consulting practice in 1985, Rauma became the firm’s president.71

Hammel, Green and Abrahamson (Hammel & Green / HGA): The architectural firm Hammel, Green, and Abrahamson (now known as HGA) has its roots in the partnership of Hammel and Green, established in 1953 by Richard Hammel and Curtis Green. Bruce Abrahamson joined the partnership in 1954, but it was not until Abrahamson became director and vice president in 1964 that the firm was renamed Hammel, Green and Abrahamson. All three architects eventually won the AIA Minnesota Gold Medal – the highest honor that the society gives to individual members.

Richard Hammel (1923 – 1986) was born in Owatonna, Minnesota. He received in degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1944 and a master’s degree in architecture from Harvard Graduate School of Design in 1947 (where he studied under Walter Gropius, founder of the Bauhaus school). After practicing for three years in Hawaii, Hammel returned to Minneapolis to accept a part-time teaching position at the University of Minnesota’s School of Architecture and a position as an assistant consulting architect to the university. Before partnering with Curtis Green, Hammel also worked as the assistant consulting architect to the St. Paul Public Schools.

Curtis Green (1925 – 2002) was born in Minneapolis and received his bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1946. After a year at the firm of Magney, Tusler and Setter, Green studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Alvar Aalto, receiving his master’s degree in architecture in 1948. Before partnering with Richard Hammel, Green worked for short periods with the Milwaukee firm of Grassold-Johnson, the Minneapolis firm of Thorshov & Cerny, and the St. Paul firm of Dimond, Haarstick and Lundgren.

Minneapolis native Bruce Abrahamson (1925 – 2008) received his architectural training at the University of Minnesota, graduating in 1949. This was followed by a Master’s degree from Harvard

71 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 86, 181; Frank Premack, “City’s New Zoning Law Takes Effect in Mid-July,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, June 30, 1963; “Rising High,” Minneapolis Tribune, August 14, 1969; “Open House Set,” Minneapolis Star, February 4, 1971; R. T. Ryback, “What’s Going On/Development,” Minneapolis Star and Tribune, February 25, 1985; “Architects Open New Firm in City,” Minneapolis Star, June 19, 1963; “John G. Rauma Papers,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota, accessed March 13, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2191.

9.22

in 1950, where, like Hammel, Abrahamson studied under Walter Gropius. Upon leaving school, Abrahamson spent a year in Europe on the Rotch Traveling Scholarship, and then two years in Chicago working for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill before returning to Minneapolis to join Hammel and Green’s fledgling firm.

Hammel, Green and Abrahamson initially specialized in public school commissions, developing a standardized approach to their school designs. The firm also designed a variety of building types in the areas of higher education, the arts, religion, and healthcare, collaborating with the New York firm of Hardy Holyman Pfeiffer Associates on the design of Minneapolis’s 1974 Orchestra Hall.72

Lang and Raugland and Lewis (Lang and Raugland / Lang, Raugland and Brunet / Raugland, Entrikin, Domholt and King, Inc.): The architectural firm known as Lang, Raugland, and Lewis was established by three architects: Oscar Lang, Arnold L. Raugland, and Carroll E. Lewis. Minneapolis native Oscar Lang (1888 – 1960) received his earliest architectural training from 1908 until 1912 in the office of Minneapolis architect Cecil Chapman. After obtaining further education from the University of Pennsylvania School of Architecture from 1913 until 1915, Lang returned to Minneapolis, where he worked first for the architectural firm Hewitt and Brown, then for the firm of Long, Lamoreaux and Long, and finally for the Board of Education. Like Lang, Arnold Raugland (1893 – 1966) was born in Minneapolis. Between 1916 and 1922, Raugland worked for numerous engineering and architectural offices in the city, earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota, and served in an army engineering unit in France during World War I.

In 1922, Raugland and Lang joined with Carroll Lewis to establish the firm of Lang, Raugland & Lewis, which opened its first office at 627 Metropolitan Bank Building in Minneapolis. During the 1920s, the firm designed several Gothic Revival-style churches in Minneapolis. During this time, Raugland specialized in the design of the firm’s reinforced concrete and structural steel buildings. Little is known about Carroll Lewis, who left the firm in the early 1930s.

Architectural historian Alan Lathrop notes that the firm of Lang and Raugland was “one of the most successful architectural practices in Minneapolis for many years.” The partners gained a reputation for their designs of corporate and institutional buildings, including banks, factories, and office buildings in addition to churches.

Lang and Raugland’s long collaboration ended with Lang’s death in 1960. In 1961, the firm changed its name to Lang, Raugland and Brunet, Inc., reflecting the increased involvement of James A. Brunet in the firm. In April of 1966, the firm changed its name again to Raugland, Entrikin, Domholt and King, Inc., just months before Raugland’s death in August of 1966; the new name

72 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 1, 84, 90; Linda Mack, “Architects,” Star Tribune, October 18, 1998; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 13 – 15; “About,” HGA, accessed May 11, 2020, https://hga.com/about/; Millett, AIA Guide to Minnesota, 30.

9.23

reflected the firm’s four principals: Robert C. Raugland, George W. Entrikin, Orvall S. Domholt, and Wilder C. King. Little is known about Wilder C. King, who graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1951 with a bachelor’s degree in architecture.73

Larson and McLaren: St. Paul native Albert Oliver Larson (1893 – 1974) studied architecture at the University of Pennsylvania from 1912 until 1915 and under St. Paul architect Emmanuel Masqueray in 1916. From 1912 until 1917, Larson also worked as a draftsman for Allen Stem. Between 1917 and 1922, Larson was employed by several Twin Cities architects, including Clarence H. Johnston (1917), Toltz, King & Day (1919), and Magney & Tusler (1919 – 1922). In 1922, Larson established his own practice in partnership with Donald McLaren, creating a firm that would continue for more than fifty years. Donald Andrew McLaren (1891 – 1950) was born in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. He received his bachelor’s degree in architecture from Cornell University and was employed at James Gamble Rogers’ New York City office from 1916 to 1917. After a brief stint in the U.S. Navy during World War I, McLaren returned to New York City and Rogers’s office, practicing there until 1920. McLaren then moved to Minneapolis and took a position at the firm of Magney & Tusler, where he remained until forming the partnership with Larson in 1922.

The firm of Larson and McLaren initially focused on residential architecture, later switching its focus to large-scale commercial projects. The firm designed many buildings in downtown Minneapolis. In 1950, Larson and McLaren designed an eight-story apartment building overlooking Minneapolis’ Loring Park. A newspaper article noted that the building was the “first large one to be started in Minneapolis for nearly 20 years” and “the highest apartment building in Minneapolis and the first erected under the recently revised city housing code which now permits erection of eight-story apartment buildings.” The building was also praised for its cross-shaped design, which “eliminat[ed] all long corridors characteristic of apartment planning in Minneapolis for the past 50 years.”

73 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 133, 135, 180; “Organization News,” American Contractor, vol. 43, April 15, 1922, https://books.google.com/books?id=Z_tYAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA8-PA72&lpg=RA8- PA72&dq=land,+raugland+and+lewis&source=bl&ots=faUkkd-Xxf&sig=ACfU3U08hPyuunU2dZYWx_zqHAH5q- i0Qg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL9fzT9oTgAhVm0YMKHbw0AtoQ6AEwCXoECAMQAQ#v=snippet&q=raugland%20and%20le wis&f=false; The 106 Group, Phase II Architectural History Investigation for the Proposed Central Transit Corridor, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, Minnesota (submitted to the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, September 2004), 74, https://metrocouncil.org/getattachment/2aa41b36-cf8c-44a3-8b73-ff1092bcbf5f/Central-Corridor-Phase-II-Architectural- History-In.aspx; “Lang and Raugland Papers,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota, accessed January 30, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2316; Gebhard and Martinson, A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota, 297; “Deaths,” Minneapolis Star, December 12, 1960; “Services Planned for Retired City Architect,” Minneapolis Star, August 23, 1966; Charlene Roise and Penny Peterson, The Currie Park Development Project: A Historical and Architectural Assessment (prepared for Fine Associates, March 2007), 31; “Architects to Hold Economy Seminars,” Minneapolis Star, March 28, 1964; “Lang and Raugland Changes Its Name,” Minneapolis Star, March 3, 1961; “Architectural Firm Has Changed Name,” Minneapolis Tribune, April 13, 1966; “Class Lists by Year,” University of Minnesota, accessed March 12, 2019, http://arch.design.umn.edu/news/arch100/class_list.php#top.

9.24

In addition to his responsibilities as an architect, Larson served as president of the Minnesota Society of Architects and the Minnesota Association of Architects. McLaren continued to practice at the firm until his death in 1950 and Larson until his retirement in 1963. The firm was dissolved in 1980. 74

Liebenberg, Kaplan, Glotter and Associates (Liebenberg & Kaplan): Jacob J. “Jack” Liebenberg (1893 – 1985) was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He received a degree from the University of Minnesota’s School of Architecture in 1916 as a member of the school’s first graduating class and a master’s degree from Harvard University in 1917. After a stint in the Army Air Corps during World War I, Liebenberg returned to the University of Minnesota to teach while also working for Minneapolis architect D. C. Bennett. In 1920, Liebenberg began his own practice in partnership with Robert Martin. Seeman Kaplan, one of Liebenberg’s former students, joined the firm in 1921.

Like Liebenburg, Minneapolis native Seeman Kaplan (1895 – 1963) received his architecture degree from the University of Minnesota. After graduating from the University in 1918, he served in the Engineering Corps during World War I. In 1921, he joined Liebenberg (who was not only Seeman’s former professor but also his brother-in-law) and Robert Martin in their partnership, which became known as Liebenberg & Kaplan in 1923. Kaplan was primarily responsible for the business operations and engineering aspects of the firm’s work, while Liebenberg acted as the principal designer.

Liebenberg & Kaplan was one of the most successful architectural firms in the Twin Cities, specializing in the design of elaborate homes, Jewish temples, and movie theaters. The firm was a prolific designer of Art Deco and Streamline Moderne-style theaters, producing plans for more than 200 new theaters and 600 theater remodeling projects in six Midwestern states between 1923 and 1941; several of their notable designs (such as the Granada Theater, Hollywood Theater, Uptown Theater, and Varsity Theater) are located in Minneapolis. Though they gained a reputation for theater designs, the partners also produced a wide variety of residential, commercial, industrial, religious, and hospital buildings. Architectural historian Larry Millet notes that the firm designed

74 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 39 – 40, 84 – 85, 137, 156 – 157, 173; “Don McLaren, Architect, Dies,” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, November 15, 1950; “Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority Overview,” January 28, 1980, Folder 2, Box 4, CPED Collection, JKHSC, MCL; Herb Paul, “Eight-Story Apartment Building to Be Built,” Minneapolis Star, May 1, 1950; Roise and Peterson, Glendale Townhomes, 12; “Bid Okd for Site F Housing,” Minneapolis Star, September 22, 1951; Chris Porterfield, “Minneapolis Project Will House 1,500 Senior Citizens by 1964,” Minneapolis Star, November 3, 1961; Richard L. Kronick and Lisa Middag, “(formerly) Dayton’s Department Store,” Minneapolis Historical, accessed March 12, 2019, http://minneapolishistorical.org/items/show/164; “Ex-area Architect Dies at 81,” Minneapolis Star, October 29, 1974; “Deaths: Albert O. Larson,” Minneapolis Tribune, October 29, 1974; “Larson and McLaren Papers,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota, accessed March 12, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2266; John Smoley, “Application for the Demolition of a Historic Resource, 425 Portland Avenue,” October 23, 2013, http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-116902.pdf; “Architect N. E. Griffith Dies; Funeral Tuesday,” Minneapolis Star, June 3, 1968; “Newton Griffith collection,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota, accessed March 12, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2147.

9.25 many houses and apartment buildings, including the six-story Calhoun Terrace Apartments (1959) and the Hennepin Aristocrat (1961) in Minneapolis.

Joel H. Glotter (b. 1925) received his bachelor’s degree of architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1951. After graduation, Glotter worked for the firms of Dimond, Haarstick and Lundgren and Magney, Tusler and Setter. He joined Liebenberg and Kaplan in 1960, and the firm was renamed Liebenberg, Kaplan, Glotter & Associates around that same time. Liebenberg, Kaplan and Glotter’s first design for MHRA was the Pentagon Apartments building at 1415 22nd Street East. The five-sided building was noted as a unique departure from the designs of early 1960s apartment buildings by one newspaper article, which praised the novelty of the design in contrast to the “standardized box[es]” produced during the Minneapolis apartment boom of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The firm’s 15-story apartment building at 1920 4th Avenue South was designed for the MHRA’s second building campaign.

Kaplan practiced at the firm until his death in 1963. Liebenberg continued to practice with partner Joel Glotter (and in 1973 partner Saul Smiley) before forming his own private practice in 1973, a practice he operated until his retirement in 1980. One of Liebenberg, Kaplan and Glotter’s most notable projects was the Hennepin County Medical Center (1972 – 1976); Liebenberg, Smiley, and Glotter were responsible for the Minnetonka Fire Station in Minnetonka, Minnesota (1974).75

Miller Whitehead Dunwiddie (Miller Dunwiddie Associates, Inc.): William Jerome Miller (1923 – 1993) was born in Rochester, Minnesota and attended Rochester Junior College for two years before joining the U.S. Army in 1943. During his time in the military (1943 – 1946), Miller studied civil engineering at North Carolina State College and St. John’s University in Collegeville; he subsequently obtained a bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1950. Miller worked for several Minnesota architectural firms in the late 1940s, including McGhie & Armstrong, Peter P. Bross, and Magney, Tusler & Setter. In 1950, he accepted a position with Long & Thorshov, becoming an associate of Thorshov & Cerny in 1956 and the vice president of Cerny Associates (Robert Cerny’s firm, established in 1960) in 1960. In 1963, Miller partnered with Kenneth J. Whitehead and Foster W. Dunwiddie, colleagues at Thorshov and Cerny and Cerny & Associates, to establish the firm of Miller Whitehead Dunwiddie.

Like Miller, Wisconsin native Foster Wilfred Dunwiddie (b. 1925) served in the U.S. army and studied engineering during his time in the military. After World War II, Dunwiddie obtained a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Wisconsin (1948) followed by a

75 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 83, 123, 138 – 139; “History of the Hollywood: Liebenberg and Kaplan – Masters of Movie Theater Design,” PVN, March 6, 2013, http://www.pvnworks.com/blog/history-of-the-hollywood-liebenberg-and-kaplan- masters-of-movie-theater-design; “Jacob J. Liebenberg & Seeman Kaplan,” City of Minneapolis, updated February 7, 2019, http://www.minneapolismn.gov/hpc/landmarks/hpc_landmarks_liebenberg_and_kaplan; Ralph Mason, “1959 Was Record Year for Builders,” Minneapolis Star, February 25, 1960; Chris Porterfield, “Minneapolis Project Will House 1,500 Senior Citizens by 1964,” Minneapolis Star, November 3, 1961; Larry Millet, Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 111, 296; “Architects to Hold Economy Seminars,” Minneapolis Star, March 28, 1964..

9.26 bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota (1951). He also obtained a master’s degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1979 and taught at the University from 1979 until 1989. Like Miller, Dunwiddie accepted a position at Thorshov and Cerny in 1950, progressing to the role of associate in 1955 and vice president in 1959 before establishing his own partnership with Whitehead and Miller in 1963. During Miller Whitehead Dunwiddie’s early years, Dunwiddie was responsible for corporate and government work, while Miller and Whitehead pursued aviation projects. Among Miller Whitehead Dunwiddie’s earliest projects were its iconic round glass branch banks, constructed during the 1960s in the Twin Cities area for Midwest Federal Savings and Loan. Shortly after Whitehead left the partnership in 1966, the firm became Miller Dunwiddie Associates Inc.; Miller and Dunwiddie continued at the firm until their respective retirements in 1997 and c. 1990. Today, the firm is known for its historic preservation work as well as its aviation and transportation projects.76

Parker-Klein Associates (Leonard Parker Associates)

Leonard Parker (1923 - 2011) was born near Warsaw, Poland, but was raised in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After a stint in the army during World War II, Parker graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 1948 with a bachelor’s degree and earned a master’s degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1949. For six years, he was employed at the Michigan practice of renowned architect Eero Saarinen, where he worked on Saarinen’s notable St. Louis Gateway Arch and Christ Church Lutheran projects. Parker then moved to Minneapolis, where he joined the firm of Saul C. Smiley and Associates in 1956. He founded Leonard Parker Associates in 1957, and was joined by George Klein Jr. in 1968. Parker taught at the University of Minnesota’s School of Architecture from 1959 until 1993, training many of the state’s future practitioners. His architectural firm eventually received over 100 regional, national, and international design awards, and Parker himself received a Gold Medal from the Minnesota chapter of the American Institute of Architects in 1968.

George Klein Jr. (1923 - 2010) grew up in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and studied at the University of Manitoba for two years before transferring to the University of Minnesota, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1949. Klein worked for Magney, Tusler and Setter from 1947

76 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 64, 160; Jeffery A. Hess and Paul Clifford Larson, St. Paul’s Architecture: A History (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), 192; “United Air Lines,” Minneapolis Star, February 4, 1969; “Nicollet Island Buildings Recommended for Restoration,” Minneapolis Tribune, May 18, 1974; Carl Griffin Jr., “What’s Going On,” Minneapolis Tribune, August 6, 1976; “Miller Dunwiddie Architecture Celebrates 50 Year Legacy in Designing and Preserving Minnesota Architecture,” Business Wire, November 20, 2013, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131120006487/en/Miller-Dunwiddie-Architecture-Celebrates-50-Year-Legacy; Don Jacobson, “Architecture Firm’s Transportation Roots Carry Forward,” Star Tribune, December 5, 2013, http://www.startribune.com/architecture-firm-s-transportation-roots-carry-forward/234655771/; “Foster Dunwiddie Papers,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota, accessed March 12, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/6083; “History,” Miller Dunwiddie, accessed March 12, 2019, http://www.millerdunwiddie.com/history/; “Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority Overview,” January 28, 1980, Folder 2, Box 4, CPED Collection, JKHSC, MCL.

9.27

until 1949, the firm of Haarstick and Lundgren in St. Paul from 1950 until about 1954, and the firm of Hammel and Green from around 1954 until 1968, when he joined Parker as a partner.

Some of Klein and Parker’s most notable works include Elliott Hall and the Law School (now Walter F. Mondale Hall) at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis (1973 – 74 and 1977, respectively). The firm also collaborated with architect Kenzo Tange on the design of the 1973/1974 addition to the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. The partnership between Parker and Klein dissolved in 1977, though both architects continued to practice long after this date. Parker continued to produce notable works, including the Minnesota Judicial Center (1998) and the Minneapolis Convention Center (1989 and 2002) and many international projects, including the U.S. Embassy in Santiago, Chile (1994) and the Korean Embassy in Ottawa, Canada (1996), through his later years.77 Patch and Erickson (Patch, Erickson, Madson and Hanson): Minnesota native Roger W. Patch (b. 1924) graduated from the University of Minnesota with a bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1947 and from Harvard University with a master’s degree in 1950. From the mid-1940s until the mid-1950s, he worked for Magney, Tusler and Setter, leaving the firm for two years to serve in the U.S. Army (c. 1945 – 1947) and for three years to work for Minneapolis architect Loren Abbett (1950 – 1953). In 1955, Patch partnered with fellow University of Minnesota graduate Donald Erickson (c. 1926 – 2011) to create the firm of Patch and Erickson, based in Wayzata, Minnesota. University of Minnesota graduates John A. Madson and Robert D. Hanson joined the firm as principals in 1959. Patch and Erickson, which became Patch, Erickson, Madson and Hanson in 1970, initially specialized in the design of Minnesota nursing homes, designing at least eight across the state by 1958. According to a newspaper article, the nursing homes were distinguished by their “low and uncluttered lines” and a “maximum of thought for the convenience and safety of the residents.” The firm was also known for its designs of public buildings, schools, medical facilities, religious buildings, and commercial structures.78

Rapson, Ralph: Ralph Rapson (1914 – 2008) was born in Alma, Michigan. After a stint at Alma College, Rapson studied at the University of Michigan, where he received his degree in architecture in 1938. Rapson completed graduate work in urban and regional planning under notable Modernist architect Eliel

77 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 130, 169 – 170; “Architect Will Be Honored for Efforts in Small Business,” Star Tribune, September 9, 1987; Linda Mack, “Tall Orders,” Star Tribune, July 21, 2002; Bob Lundegaard, “Good Building Reminds Architect of Agony It Took,” Minneapolis Star and Tribune, February 17, 1987; Euan Kerr, “Renown Minnesota Architect Leonard Parker Dies at 88,” MPR News, July 25, 2011, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2011/07/25/leonard-parker-obit; Barry Lehrman, “RIP Leonard Parker,” Archinect.com, July 25, 2011, https://archinect.com/news/article/14633505/rip-leonard-parker-1923-2011; Hallie Busta, “Leonard S. Parker 88, Dies,” Architect, July 27, 2011, https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/leonard-s- parker-88-dies_o; Linda Mack, “Architect Leonard Parker: Minnesota Modern,” Star Tribune, July 30, 2011, https://www.startribune.com/architect-leonard-parker-minnesota-modern/126413263/?refresh=true. 78 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 171 – 172; “Donald M. Erickson,” Star Tribune, February 13, 2011, http://www.startribune.com/obituaries/detail/12940827/?fullname=donald-m-erickson; “Class Lists by Year,” University of Minnesota, accessed March 12, 2019, http://arch.design.umn.edu/news/arch100/class_list.php#top; “Architects ‘Prescribe’ Buildings for State’s Aged,” Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, June 1, 1958; “Change of Name,” Minneapolis Star, May 11, 1970; “Architect Robert D. Hanson Dies at 62,” Minneapolis Star and Tribune, February 17, 1987.

9.28

Saarinen at the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Michigan, then began a private practice in Chicago in 1942. While in Chicago, Rapson also worked as head of the Department of Architecture at the Institute of Design. After receiving a position as associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s School of Architecture in 1946, Rapson opened an office in Cambridge, Massachusetts. During the early 1950s, he designed American embassies in Europe before moving to the Twin Cities to accept a position as head of the University of Minnesota’s School of Architecture in 1954. Rapson continued to design while serving at the University, where he remained until 1984.

According to architectural historian and critic Larry Millet, Rapson was “a dynamic designer and charismatic leader…for many years the public face of modern architecture in Minnesota”79 As an educator for thirty years, Rapson trained the next generation of Minnesota architects, including well-known practitioners Milo Thompson, Leonard Parker, John Cunningham, and Duane Thorbeck, and William Pederson of the nationally-recognized firm Kohn Pederson Fox Associates. Rapson created many notable residential designs, as well as designs for churches, commercial and institutional buildings, and furniture. Rapson’s most famous Minneapolis work, the landmark Tyrone Guthrie Theater (1961 – 1963), was razed in 2006.80

79 Millett, Minnesota Modern, 4. 80 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 179 – 180; Millett, Minnesota Modern, 13 – 15, 205; Linda Mack, “The Hand of Ralph Rapson,” Star Tribune, April 8, 2008, https://www.startribune.com/the-hand-of-ralph-rapson/17274674/; Karissa Rosenfield, “William Pederson Honored with 2013 AIANY Medal of Honor,” Arch Daily, April 19, 2013, https://www.archdaily.com/362662/william- pedersen-honored-with-2013-aiany-medal-of-honor.

9.29

Setter, Leach, and Lindstrom:

Minnesota native Stowell Douglas Leach (1906 – 1994) received his bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1929. Between 1929 and 1936, Leach worked for Minneapolis architect J.C. Pendergast, the General Bronze Corporation in Minneapolis, and the Kawneer Company in Miles, Michigan. He then joined the Minneapolis architectural firm McEnary & Krafft, working as a draftsman, designer, and specifications writer for five years. In 1941, Leach began a series of short-term stints at three different firms: the architecture/engineering firm of Shanley, Van Teylingen & Henningston in Great Falls Montana (1941); Sanderson & Porter in Pine Bluff, Arkansas (1941 - 1943) and Metcalfe-Hamilton-Kansas City Bridge Company in Edmonton, Alberta (1943 – 1944). In 1944, he moved back to Minneapolis to join the Magney, Tusler & Setter partnership. Leach became a partner at Magney, Tusler & Setter in the 1950s and continued at the firm for the rest of his career.

Like Leach, Lester John Lindstrom (1915 – 1995) was Minneapolis native who also received his architectural degree from the University of Minnesota, graduating in 1940. Lindstrom also gained a master’s degree in architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1941. After a brief stint as a junior draftsman in Wessel, Brunet & Kline (a Minneapolis firm), Lindstrom moved to Great Falls, Montana to join Shanley, Van Teylingen & Henningston. Lindstrom likely met Stowell Leach at this firm, and worked at the same wartime construction firms as Leach over the next several years – Sanderson & Porter in New York City and the Metcalfe-Hamilton-Kansas City Bridge Company in Edmonton, Alberta. After moving back to Minneapolis in 1945, Lindstrom entered the firm of Magney, Tusler & Setter. Like Leach, Lindstrom became a partner in the firm in the 1950s and continued at the firm for the rest of his career.

Donald P. Setter (1904 – 1990) was born in New York and worked for two New York architectural offices in the 1920s before receiving his bachelor’s degree in architecture from Cornell University in 1930. Upon graduation, Setter moved to Minneapolis and accepted a position at Hewitt and Brown, which later became Hewitt, Setter & Hamlin. Setter moved to Magney & Tusler in 1939, earning the status of partner shortly thereafter. Magney & Tusler was a prominent Minneapolis firm that had prospered during the 1920s and 1930s and was responsible for the design of the iconic Foshay Tower in Minneapolis (1929). Partnership turnover resulted in several iterations of the firm’s name over the following years - Magney, Tusler & Setter; Magney, Setter, Leach, Lindstrom and Erickson; and Magney, Setter, Leach & Lindstrom. Before Tusler’s retirement in 1959, the firm was known for its low-cost housing and hospital designs, with 56 hospital projects in five states by that date. Around 1961, the firm became Setter, Leach & Lindstrom and continued under this name until the 1990s.81

Thorshov and Cerny (see also Cerny Associates and Thorsen and Thorshov): Roy Thorshov (1905 – 1992), the son of well-known Minneapolis architect Olaf Thorshov, was born in Minneapolis and graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in architecture in 1928. Thorshov joined his father’s partnership of Long & Thorshov shortly before the elder

9.30

Thorshov’s death in 1928, and subsequently became a full partner. In 1942, Robert Cerny (1908 – 1985) joined the firm, which became Thorshov and Cerny in 1951. Cerny was a Wisconsin native but graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1932. During the 1930s, he obtained a master’s degree in architecture from Harvard University (1933), worked with the Tennessee Valley Authority, and traveled to Europe under a Nelson-Robinson Traveling Fellowship. In 1937, he formed the partnership of Jones and Cerny and also obtained a position teaching “modern” architecture at the University of Minnesota, where he would continue to teach until 1976.

From 1942 until 1960, Thorshov and Cerny designed over 100 buildings, including religious, educational, residential, commercial and office structures, as well as the Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, MN and an airport terminal at what is now the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The partnership was known for its modernist designs and was one of the largest architectural firms in Minneapolis during the 1950s. Roy Thorshov served as the president of the Minnesota Society of Architects, as president of the Minneapolis chapter of the American Institute of Architects, as a member of the AIA’s College of Fellows, and as a board member on the state Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors. Though passionate about designing new buildings, Thorshov was also invested in the preservation of historic structures, becoming the first chairman of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission in 1972 and serving as the president of the Hennepin County Historical Society. In contrast to his partner Thorshov, Cerny was an ardent supporter of urban renewal. He served as chairman of the Urban Renewal Committee of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and was a strong advocate for Minneapolis’ Gateway Center Urban Renewal Project in the 1940s and 1950s.82

Thorsen and Thorshov (see also Thorshov and Cerny) The firm of Thorsen and Thorshov had its roots in the partnership of Robert Cerny and Roy Norman Thorshov, established in 1942. Roy Thorshov (1905 – 1992), the son of well-known Minneapolis architect Olaf Thorshov, was born in Minneapolis and graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in architecture in 1928. Thorshov joined his father’s partnership of Long & Thorshov shortly before the elder Thorshov’s death in 1928, and subsequently became a full partner. In 1942, Robert Cerny joined the firm, which became Thorshov and Cerny in 1951. From 1942 until 1960, Thorshov and Cerny designed over 100 buildings, including religious, educational, residential, commercial and office structures, as well as the Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, MN and an airport terminal at what is now the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The partnership was known for its modernist designs and was one of the largest architectural firms in

81 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 137 – 138, 140, 191 – 192; “Engineer Firm to Change Name,” Minneapolis Star, July 13, 1960; Ralph Mason, “Top Architectural Firm ‘Drops’ One Name, Adds 3,” Minneapolis Star, February 3, 1959; “District 623 to Vote on Second High School,” Minneapolis Star, September 15, 1961; “Work Starts on New 450-Car Parking Ramp Near Courthouse,” Minneapolis Star, April 4, 1961; Roise and Peterson, Glendale Townhomes, 9. 82 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 35, 211; Fritz, Evaluation of Historic Significance: Public Service Center, 6 – 7; Jim Fuller, “Downtown’s Stadium Only Part of Architect’s Dream for City,” Minneapolis Tribune, January 23, 1972; David Chanen, “Roy Thorshov, Architect of Twin Cities, Is Dead at 87,” Star Tribune, March 17, 1992.

9.31

Minneapolis during the 1950s. Roy Thorshov served as the president of the Minnesota Society of Architects, as president of the Minneapolis chapter of the American Institute of Architects, as a member of the AIA’s College of Fellows, as a fellow of the International Institute of Arts and Letters, and as a board member on the state Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors. Though passionate about designing new buildings, Thorshov was also invested in the preservation of historic structures, becoming the first chairman of the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission in 1972 and serving as the president of the Hennepin County Historical Society.

Willard Thorsen (1924 – 1998) was born in Mason City, Iowa. After a brief stint in the U.S. Army Air Force meteorology program during World War II, Thorsen studied architecture at the University of Minnesota, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in 1949. He subsequently joined Thorshov and Cerny as a draftsman. After Thorshov and Cerny dissolved their partnership in 1960, Thorshov formed a new partnership with Thorsen. The firm of Thorshov and Thorsen, which lasted through 1987, was known for its shopping center designs, including Apache Plaza, the second- largest regional shopping center in the upper Midwest at its completion in 1961. The firm was purchased by the architectural and engineering firm Hammel Green & Abrahamson Inc. in 1987.83

TKDA (Toltz, King, Duvall and Anderson): TKDA begin as Toltz, King, and Day in the 1910s. Founding partners Max Toltz, Beaver Wade Day, and Wesley King all came from engineering backgrounds and the firm was well known nationally for its bridge and power plant design, as well as its commercial buildings. While Toltz and Day were no longer with the firm by the Modern Era, King played an active role through 1956, at which time Arndt Duvall and Gerald Anderson became partners. The name change to Toltz, King, Duvall and Anderson followed in 1959.

Williams, Lorenzo D. (Williams/O’Brien Associates): Lorenzo D. Williams (1923 – 2011) was born in Louisville, Kentucky, and joined in the Army in 1942. He obtained a degree in architecture from Howard University in Washington, D. C. in 1950 and subsequently took a position in Minneapolis with architect Benjamin Gingold. In 1962, Williams partnered with James O’Brien to form Williams/O’Brien Associates, a successful partnership that would last until Williams’ retirement in 1999. Williams/O’Brien Associates focused on urban renewal and specialized in the design of multi-family housing and religious buildings, reaching its height in the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. The firm was distinguished from other Minnesota architectural firms by its social consciousness, working with government housing authorities to advocate for public housing tenants and give those tenants increased voice in the design of their residences.

83 Lathrop, Minnesota Architects, 210 – 211; Laurel Fritz, Evaluation of Historic Significance: Public Service Center, 6 – 7; “Architects Pick Roy Thorshov,” Minneapolis Star, September 23, 1963; David Chanen, “Roy Thorshov, Architect of Twin Cities, Is Dead at 87,” Star Tribune, March 17, 1992; “2 Architectural Companies Join,” Star Tribune, October 6, 1987; “42-Acre Regional Shopping Center Opens,” Minneapolis Star, October 19, 1961.

9.32

Williams himself was active in multiple social advocacy organizations, including the Minneapolis Committee on Minority Housing, the Minnesota Social Welfare Task Force, the Government Commission for the Employment of the Handicapped, and the Citizens League Low-Income Housing Committee. He was the first African-American president of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, and was also appointed to the Presidential Commission on Barriers to the Handicapped by President Lyndon B. Johnson.84

84 “Lorenzo D. Williams,” NCARB.org, accessed March 13, 2019, https://www.ncarb.org/about/history-ncarb/past- presidents/lorenzo-d-williams; “Williams O’Brien Associates, Inc. Papers,” Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota, accessed March 13, 2019, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/6953; Pamela Miller, “Williams, 87, an Architect for Social Justice,” Star Tribune, September 13, 2011; “City Unit Oks Plan to Develop 21 Acres,” Minneapolis Star, January 7, 1969; “Newly Appointed Minority Housing Committee Meets,” Minneapolis Tribune, December 19, 1964; “Rent Rise Under HUD Not Likely,” Minneapolis Star, December 17, 1974; Brian Anderson, “Cooperative Apartment to Be Built Near U of M,” Minneapolis Tribune, January 19, 1972; Peter Blankman, “Cluster-Housing Planner-Builder Backed,” Minneapolis Star, May 9, 1974; Minneapolis Star, October 11, 1968.

9.33

PRESERVATION OVERVIEW HISTORIC DESIGNATION

In order for a property to be designated as historic, it must meet criteria for designation outlined in federal, state, and/or local preservation frameworks. In general, a property must be recognized as a property type that is eligible for preservation, and exhibit sufficient historic significance and historic integrity for designation. This section provides an overview of federal and local designation for historic properties, and outlines the relevant laws and regulations related to each level of designation. Federal Designation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, is a key piece of federal legislation that provides for the protection of cultural resources in the United States. The NHPA established the NRHP as “the official list of the Nation’s historic places worth of preservation.” The NHPA also established State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). To be considered NRHP-eligible, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria defined by the National Park Service: Criterion A: Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: Association with the life of a significant person.

Criterion C: Embody a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value.

Criterion D: Yield, or be likely to yield, important information on history or prehistory.

Certain types of properties are not typically eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criteria Considerations allow for properties such as cemeteries, birthplaces or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religions institutions or used for religious purposes, structures moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years to be considered eligible if they are integral parts of larger historic districts that do meet the standard criteria, or if they fall under one of the Considerations below:

Criterion Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Criterion Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

Criterion Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his production life.

9.34

Criterion Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

Criterion Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified matter as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived.

Criterion Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance.

Criterion Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years it is of exceptional importance.

If a property is determined to possess historic significance under one of these criteria, its integrity is evaluated using the seven aspects of integrity. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation identifies the seven aspects of integrity to be used in evaluating properties for eligibility. These aspects of integrity are: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location: The place where the property was constructed of the place where the historic event occurred.

Setting: The physical environment/character of the place where the property played its historical role.

Design: How well the property retains combinations of elements creating its form, plan, space, structure, and style.

Materials: How physical elements were combined at specific time periods and in particular patterns to create the property.

Workmanship: How well a property retains physical evidence of the crafts of a particular time period in history.

Feeling: The combination of the property’s physical features that express the historic sense of a particular time period.

Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

If a property is determined to possess historical significance under one or more criteria, retains sufficient integrity to convey that historic significance, and meets any applicable criteria considerations, the property is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

9.35

City of Minneapolis Local Designation

The City of Minneapolis defines historic resources as properties that meet any one of seven criteria, as outlined in Section 599.210 of the City of Minneapolis Municipal Code. The criteria that must be considered when determining the local historic significance of a property include: 1) The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 2) The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. 3) The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES AND RELATIONSHIP TO DESIGNATION CRITERIA

Property types associated with the themes of architecture and architects within the context of Minneapolis in the Modern Era will be located within the city limits of Minneapolis, will have achieved significance between 1930 and 1975, and will demonstrate historic significance under one or more designation criteria in connection to these themes. This section describes the property types most likely to be associated with these themes, and the associated property types’ relationship to NRHP and local designation criteria. Associated Property Types

Specific property types associated with the themes of architecture and architects within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 are listed below. Of the property categories acknowledged by the National Register (buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects), properties associated with this theme are most likely to be buildings, districts, or sites. These might include: 1) Properties that exemplify the design elements of a particular architectural style present during the Modern Era 2) Properties that exemplify the work of a particular architect, landscape architect, engineer, builder or developer associated with the Modern Era 3) Properties that utilize a unique or innovative building material or structural system Associated Properties’ Relationship to National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP, properties must have obtained significance for one of the four National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following section provides suggestions on

9.36 how properties associated with architecture and architects within the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 - 1975 might be evaluated for significance under these four criteria. The term “subject property” is used to refer to properties associated with this theme. For additional information, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.85 Criterion A: Association with Significant Events

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, subject properties must be “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.” These events include 1) “a specific event marking an important moment in American prehistory or history” and 2) “a pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant contribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation.” In general the themes discussed in the architecture and architects chapter of the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975 include modern architectural styles and master designers, and should be evaluated under Criterion C. Subject properties may also be eligible under Criterion A for association with one of the themes identified in the other chapters of the context. For example, an architecturally significant theater may also be significant under Criterion A in the area of Entertainment/Recreation. Criterion B: Association with Significant Persons

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion B, properties must be “associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.” A significant individual is one “whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.” Within the theme of architecture and architects in the context Minneapolis in the Modern Era: 1930 – 1975, associated significant individuals will be notable architects, contractors, and landscape architects. Properties significant for association with these types of individuals should be considered under Criterion C. Subject properties may also be eligible under Criterion B if they are associated with an individual who is significant under one of the themes identified in the other chapters of the context. For example, an architecturally significant single-family home may also be associated with an owner who was significant in his/her own right. Criterion C: Design/Construction

According to the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, to be considered eligible under Criterion C, properties must “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or…represent the work of a master, or…possess high artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Properties that represent a type, period, or method of construction are those that illustrate, through distinctive features, a particular architectural style or construction method. They might illustrate “the pattern of features common to a particular class of

85 National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf.

9.37

resources, the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, the evolution of that class, or the transition between classes of resources.” These properties might be associated with several Areas of Significance defined by the National Park 86 Service in the National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. These include: • Architecture, “the practical art of designing and constructing buildings and structures to serve human needs” • Community Planning and Development: “the design or development of the physical structure of communities” • Engineering, “the practical application of scientific principles to design, construct, and operate equipment, machinery, and structures to serve human needs” or • Landscape Architecture: “the practical art of designing or arranging the land for human use and enjoyment” For subject properties to be considered eligible under Criterion C in the context of this chapter, they must be representative of modern architectural styles or the work of a master (i.e., a notable architect, engineer, or contractor, possess high artistic value, or exemplify design trends or methods of construction that are representative of the Modern Era. For example, an International Style single- family home might be nominated under Criterion C for the distinctive features that characterize it as an example of a class of resources (International Style single-family homes) developed as a mode of domestic architecture during the Modern Era. The level of significance would potentially be local, state-wide, or even national. All properties designated under Criterion C should have a period of significance synonymous with their date of construction. Criterion D: Information Potential

To be considered eligible under Criterion D, properties must “have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion D, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category. Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the theme of architecture and architects within this context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the

86 For a complete list of Areas of Significance, see the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A- Complete.pdf.

9.38

Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion D. Criterion Considerations:

The temporal period of this context study ends in 1975, 45 years from today’s date. Thus, it is possible that some associated properties may have achieved exceptional significance within the past 50 years under Criterion G. Associated Properties’ Relationship to Local Designation Criteria: Criterion 1: Association with Significant Events

Properties are unlikely be significant under local Criterion 1 for their association with the theme of architecture and architects. Criterion 2: Association with Significant Persons or Groups

Properties are unlikely be significant under local Criterion 2 for their association with the theme of architecture and architects. Criterion 3: Association with City or Neighborhood Identity

Buildings of a particular architectural style may be linked to the identity of a neighborhood or the city at large. Thus, it is likely that some subject properties will be eligible for local designation under Criterion 3 for association with neighborhood or city identity. 4) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction.

Properties that meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 4. 5) The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail.

Some properties that meet National Register Criterion C (see above) as representative of a class of resources might also be eligible under local Criterion 5. 6) The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects.

Properties which meet the National Register Criterion C (see above) will likely also be significant under local Criterion 6. 7) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Subject properties are unlikely to be eligible under Criterion 7, though a subject property which is the only surviving record of a particular structural system or use of a material might qualify under this category.

9.39

Subject properties located on land cleared of previous buildings may rest on urban archaeological sites that might contain information important in history or prehistory. These sites, however, are not related to the subject properties themselves and cannot be evaluated under the themes of architecture and architects within the context; therefore, subject properties cannot be considered eligible for local designation under Criterion 7 for their archaeological potential. Urban archaeological sites may contain archaeology of the recent past that would date to the Modern Era. Any remnants of the built environment uncovered in such cases should be evaluated for significance under their appropriate historic contexts by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Archaeology. New History does not employ archaeologists and has not evaluated resources identified in this historic context or the associated survey for information potential under Criterion 7. Integrity

To retain integrity, a subject property must retain most or all of the seven aspects of integrity, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties that retain integrity will have the ability to communicate their historic significance through their physical features. For more information on integrity, see the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

9.40

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banham, Reyner. “The New Brutalism” The Architectural Review December 1955. Full text available online: https://www.architectural-review.com/the-new-brutalism-by-reyner- banham/8603840.article

nd Benton, Charlotte, Tim Benton, and Ghislane Woods. Art Deco, 1910 – 1939, 2 ed. London: V & A Publishing. 2015.

Breeze, Carla. American Art Deco. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2003.

rd Curtin, William J.R. Modern Architecture since 1900, 3 ed. New York: Phaidon Press. 1996.

Cutler, Phoebe. The Public Landscape of the New Deal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 1985.

Craig, Lois. The Federal Presence: Architecture Politics, and Symbols in United States Government Building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1984.

Duncan, Alistair, ed. The Encyclopedia of Art Deco. New York: E. P. Dutton. 1998.

Eggener, Keith L., ed. American Architectural History: A Contemporary Reader. New York: Routledge. 2004.

th Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History, 4 ed. New York, Thames & Hudson. 2007.

Gebhard, David and Tom Martinson. A Guide to the Architecture of Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1977.

Gebhard, David. The National Trust Guide to Art Deco. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1996.

Haddad, Elie G and David Rifkind, eds. A Critical History of Contemporary Architecture: 1960-2010. New York: Routledge. 2016.

Haskell, Barbara ed. The American Century: Art & Culture 1900 – 1950. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art in association with W. W. Norton & Company. 1999.

McAlester, Virginia & Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1992.

Marcovich, Sharon J. “Buried Bookstore Saves Energy, Saves Space, Saves the View.” Popular Science Volume 211, No. 3, September 1977.

Maresca, Joseph. WPA Buildings: Architecture and Art of the New Deal. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. 2016.

9.41

Marter, Joan M. ed., The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011.

Millet, Larry. AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press. 2007.

Millet, Larry. Minnesota Modern: Architecture and Life at Midcentury. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 2015.

“Minnesota Modern Registry.” Docomomo-us-mn.org. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://www.docomomo-us-mn.org/modern-registry.html.

Nelson, Charles. “Tech Talk – Minnesota’s Architecture – Part V: Styles of the Modern Era: Prairie School, Bungalow, Art Deco, International & Revivals,” Minnesota History Interpreter. January, 2000.

Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide. http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles

Roth, Leland M. American Architecture: A History. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 2001.

Short, C.W. & R. Stanley Brown. Public Buildings: Architecture Under the Public Works Administration 1933 – 39, vol. I, Projects Constructed by Federal and Other Governmental Bodies between the Years 1933 and 1939 with the Assistance of the Public Works Administration. 1939, repr., New York: Da Capo Press. 1986.

Striner, Richard. “Art Deco: Polemics and Synthesis,” Winterthur Portfolio 25, no. 1. Spring, 1990.

Tabb, Phillip James and A. Senem Deviren. The Greening of Architecture. Farnham, England: Ashgate. 2013.

Upton, Dell. Architecture in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1998.

9.42

ABBREVIATIONS

CCC: Civilian Conservation Corps

CWA: Civil Works Administration

FERA: Federal Emergency Relief Agency

FHA: Federal Housing Administration

HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

ISKCON: International Society for Krishna Consciousness/Hare Krishna

MHRA: Minneapolis Housing and Redevelopment Authority

MISLS: Military Intelligence Service Language School

NAHB: National Association of Home Builders

NIRA: National Industrial Recovery Act

NOI: Nation of Islam

NSA: Nichiren Shoshu of America

PHA: Public Housing Authority

PUD: Planned Unit Development

PWA: Public Works Administration

ULI: Urban Land Institute

USHA: United States Housing Authority

VA: Veterans Administration

WPA: Works Progress (later Work Projects) Administration

WAC: Women’s Army Corps

WASP: Women’s Airforce Service Pilots

WAVES: Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (Naval Reserve)

A.1

MINNEAPOLIS MAYORS IN THE MODERN ERA Mayor Date Assumed Office Date Left Office1 William F. Kunze (R) July 8, 1929 July 5, 1931 William A. Anderson (FL) July 6, 1931 July 2, 1933 A. G. Bainbridge (R) July 3, 1933 July 7, 1935 Thomas e. Latimer (FL) July 8, 1935 July 4, 1937 George E. Leach (R) July 5, 1937 July 6, 1941 Marvin L. Kline (R) July 7, 1941 July 1, 1945 Hubert H. Humphrey (DFL) July 2, 1945 November 30, 1948 Eric G. Hoyer (DFL) December 1, 1948 July 7, 1957 P. Kenneth Peterson (R) July 8, 1957 July 2, 1961 Arthur Naftalin (DFL) July 3, 1961 July 6, 1969 Charles Stenvig (IND) July 7, 1969 December 31, 1973 Richard M. Erdall (R) December 31, 1973 December 31, 1973 Albert J. Hofstede (DFL) January 1, 1974 December 31, 1975

1 City of Minneapolis, “Past and Present Mayors of the City of Minneapolis,” http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/mayor-history.

A.2